- THE EVOLUTION DECEIT -

The Myth of Human Evolution

Charles Darwin expressed his thoughts on the "evolution of man" firstly
in his book named The Origin of Species published in 1859. In this
book where he argued that living organisms evolved from each other, he
did not actually advance a solid thesis on how man came into existence;
but he covertly mentioned that there was an evolutionary relationship between
men and the apes. In his book named The Descent of Man dated 1872,
he clearly stated all his thoughts about the subject. According to Darwin,
apes and men had common ancestors. With the effects of environmental conditions,
these two species had gradually differentiated from each other and today's
men and apes have evolved.

Darwin held no evidence at hand except for his creative imagination.
Not being able to go further than a fantasy, his theory started receiving
criticisms from the first day of its declaration on, for not resting on
any known scientific basis. However, those who embraced the theory as a
liberator in consort with their ideological concerns immediately started
making extensive investigations hoping to find any evidence to evolution.

Firstly the geological layers and fossil records were scrutinized.
The purpose was to generate an evolutionary connection from the fossils
of the past living things. Under these conditions arose paleontology and
paleoanthropology as new sciences for examining and interpreting these
fossil records. Gathering human fossils of various bygone races and numerous
ape fossils of different species, the paleoanthropologists made an imaginary
diagram of "the evolution of man" by arranging these fossils as they liked.
This imaginary evolution diagram which was entirely based on expectations,
assumptions and actually "wishful thinking", was prepared at the beginning
of the 1850's and reached until today undergoing lots of modifications.

On the first step of this imaginary evolution diagram is a hypothetical
"common ancestor" which has not yet been discovered. According to this
story, the primitive man diverted from this common ancestor 7 million years
ago through evolution and gradually developed into a bipedal man by time
who well adopted to walking skills in about 3-4 million years. These creatures
named "Australopithecus" (South African monkey) evolved into "Homo
habilis" who were able to use tools; and Homo habilis were replaced
by "Homo erectus" which were upright walking men from the beginning
of the year of 1.8 million. Homo erectus were respectively followed
by "Homo sapiens archaic" which is not much different from today's
man, "Homo sapiens neanderthalis", "Cro-magnon man" and the modern
human being named "Homo sapiens sapiens".

Here is the core of this story. The basic goal of the theory of evolution
is actually to impose this theory on people as if it were true by using
all kinds of methods. During this course, psychological methods are also
employed in addition to the "scientific" ones. Giving attractive names
to the skull fossils found, arranging these one after the other in an array
and delineating them in diagrams, are the most apparent methods used for
psychological persuasion purposes. The "scientific" atmosphere created
with the effect of these Latin names is enough to convince the "ordinary
man" that these imaginary species created on paper really existed.

However, the truth is quite different. The skulls presented as the
various phases of human evolution do not belong to "transitional forms"
in between a man and an ape, but either to some ape species who have already
become extinct or to different man races. A research conducted on the subject
is apt to reveal the reality explicitly and demonstrate to the public how
shallow and rootless this fallacy carried out under the enchantment of
Latin skull names is.

We are going to investigate the issue together in the following pages:

Fossil Records and the Biased Interpretations
of the Evolutionists

Fossil records constitute the primary source for the evolutionists who
look for evidence for the theory of evolution. The fossil records contain
the remains of past men. When examined objectively and attentively, it
is seen that the fossil records are not in favor of the evolutionary theory,
but against it in contrary to the assertions of the evolutionists. However,
since these fossils are incorrectly portrayed by the evolutionists and
reflected to public opinion with prejudices, many people believe that the
fossil records actually verify the theory of evolution.

The evolutionists benefit mostly from the fact that findings of fossil
records are open to all kinds of discussion. The uncovered fossils are
usually not sufficient to make a sound analysis. Actually, they are comprised
of incomplete and fragmented bone pieces. This is the reason why it is
so easy to distort the available data and use them in the desired way.

The theory of evolution is turned into a life style, a mode of thinking
and even an ideology rather than a theory by its defenders, and within
its scope, no need is felt to avoid from distorting the data or even committing
more serious forgeries. An extremist advocate of the evolutionary ideology,
for instance, does not hesitate to make any kind of distortion to be able
to interpret each finding of the fossil records in favor of the theory
of evolution.

David Pilbeam, who is an anthropologist in Harvard University explains
the influence of the ideological expectations on interpreting fossil records
as follows:

"Theory shapes the way we think about, even perceive, data? We are
unaware of many of our assumptions."

The fact that fossil records are open to all kinds of interpretations,
raises doubt on the reliability of even the whole science of paleoanthropology
which is mostly under the disposition of the evolutionists. Pilbeam described
how subjective the evolutionists were while interpreting the fossils and
how they held certain prejudices and expectations:

In the course of rethinking my ideas about human evolution, I have
changed somewhat as a scientist. I am aware of the prevalence of implicit
assumptions and try harder to dig them out of my own thinking. Theories
have, in the past, clearly reflected our current ideologies instead of
the actual data? I am more somber than I once was about what the unwritten
past can tell us."

Sir Solly Zuckerman, the famous paleontologist of Birmingham University
in England states how ideological expectations shape the way of thinking:

"We then move right off the register of objective truth into those
fields of presumed biological science, like extrasensory perception or
the interpretation of man's fossil history, where to the faithful anything
is possible - and where the ardent believer is sometimes able to believe
several contradictory things at the same time."

Trickery in
Reconstruction

Since fossil records are usually unorganized and incomplete, the estimations
based on them would be totally speculative. As a matter of fact, the reconstructions
(drawings or models) made by the evolutionists based on the fossil remains,
are treated in a speculative way in consort with the evolutionary thesis.
Since people are highly influenced from visual data, the aim is to make
them believe that these reconstructed creatures have really existed in
the past.

Just for this reason, the reconstructions of fossils and skulls are
always designed to meet the needs of the evolutionary theory. Evolutionist
researchers often set out from a single tooth, a mandibular fragment or
even a tiny bone of the arm, and draw human-like imaginary creatures, then
present these to the public opinion sensationally as a link of the evolution
of man. These drawings and reconstructions have indeed played an important
role in the visualization of the "primitive man" image in the minds
of people.

Reconstructions based on the bone remains can only reveal the general
characteristics of the object at hand. Yet, the real designating details
are soft tissues that vanish quickly in time. Therefore, with the speculative
interpretation of the soft tissues, the reconstructed drawing or model
becomes totally dependent upon the imagination of the person constructing
it. Earnst A. Hooten from Harvard University, explains the situation as
below:

To attempt to restore the soft parts is an even
more hazardous under-taking. The lips, the eyes, the ears, and the nasal
tip, leave no clues on the underlying bony parts. You can with equal facility
model on a Neanderthaloid skull the features of a chimpanzee or the lineaments
of philosopher. These alleged restorations of ancient types of a man have
very little if any scientific value and are likely only to mislead the
public? So put not your trust in reconstructions.

As a matter of fact, evolutionists invent such "pompous
stories" that they even ascribe different faces to the same skull. For
example, three different reconstructed drawings made for the fossil named
Australopithecus robustus (Zinjanthropus), is a famous example of
such a forgery.

Forgeries Done On Behalf of the Theory

Some of the evolutionists who could not find any substantial evidence in
the fossil records, finally decided to create their own evidence themselves.
These studies were even included in encyclopedias under titles like evolution
conspiracies, and this is the best proof revealing that the theory of evolution
is an ideology or a life philosophy that is sought to be kept upright with
great effort. The most well-known of these conspiracies are stated below:

Piltdown Man

A well known doctor and also an amateur paleontologist Charles Dawson came
out with the assertion that he found a jaw bone and a cranial fragment
in a pit in Piltdown, England in 1912. Despite the jaw bone was ape-like,
the teeth and the skull were looking like a man's. These specimens were
designated after as "Piltdown man", determined to be dating back to 500
thousand years and displayed as an absolute proof for the evolution of
man in several museums. For more than 40 years, many scientific articles
were written on it, many interpretations and drawings were made and it
was presented as an important evidence for the evolution of man.

The discovery of Piltdown man aroused enthusiasm in paleoanthropology
circles, and gave way to new arguments. The famous English anthropologist
G.E.Smith expressed his own thoughts over the discussion of "Did brain
or body of the man evolve first?".

The outstanding interest of the Piltdown skull is in the confirmation
it affords of the views that in the evolution of Man the brain led the
way. It is the veriest truism that Man has emerged from the simian state
in virtue of the enrichment of the structure of his mind? The brain attained
what may be termed the human rank at a time when the jaws and face, and
no doubt the body also, still retained much of the uncouthness of Man's
simian ancestors. In other words, man at first? was merely an Ape with
overgrown brain. The importance of the Piltdown skull lies in the fact
that it affords tangible confirmation of these inferences.

Famous American paleoanthropologist H.F.Osborn said "We have to be reminded
over and over again that Nature is full of paradoxes and that the order
of the universe is not the human order." when he was visiting the British
Museum in 1921.

Bringing a Hoax into Daylight

In 1949, Kenneth Oakley from British Museum's paleontology department attempted
to try the method of "fluorine test", a new test used for determining
the date of some old fossils. A trial was made on the Piltdown man's fossil.
The result was very astounding. During the test, it was realized that the
jaw bone of Piltdown man did not contain any fluor. This indicated that
the chin bone was under the ground no more than a few years. The skull
which contained only a small amount of fluorine showed that it was only
a few thousand years old.

"The latest chronological researches made with the fluorine method
revealed that the skull was only a few thousand years old. It was manifested
that the teeth in the jaw bone belonging to an orangutan were worn out
artificially, and the primitive tools found next to the fossils were simple
imitations sharpened by steel devices."

Along with these fossils were found some extinct elephant fossils and some
tool remains made out of the bones of the same elephant species. These
elephant fossils were used in the dating of the skull. In the tests, it
was understood that these elephant fossils were indeed old. However, the
jaw bone and the skull were quite new to be at the same age with the elephant
fossils. What did all these indicate? Cottrel explains that the Piltdown
ivory fossil had probably been found in Africa and then placed into the
Piltdown cave. To claim that the false skull was as old as the elephant
fossil. As the researchers studied on the other animal fossils found in
the same region, they found out that these were also superficially brought
there. The piltdown (bone tool) was seen to be a mere elephant fossil shaped
with a steel knife. And the flint tools were artificially rust colored
neolitichic fossils which.

PILTDOWN MAN FORGERY: This fake fossil that occupied the scientific
circles for a long time, displayed how far the wish to prove the theory
of evolution could go. It was only revealed in 1952 that this fossil
found in 1912 and named as Piltdown man was actually produced by assembling
an ape's jaw to a human skull. Above left: The architect of this forgery
Charles Dawson is seen near the Piltdown ditch in England. Above right,
the skull and jaw bones that are found. Below left is the reconstruction
and below right is its animation.

In the detailed analysis completed by Kenneth Oakley, William Le Gros
Clark and J.S.Weiner; this forgery was definitely made public in 1953.
The skull belonged to a 500 year old man, and the chin bone belonged to
an ape recently died. The teeth were thereafter specially arranged in an
array and added to the jaw and the joints were filled in order to resemble
it to that of a man's. Then all these pieces were stained with potasiumdichromat
for a dated appearance. These stains were disappearing when dipped in acid.
Le Gros Clark who was in the team that disclosed the forgery, could not
hide his astonishment against this situation:

The evidences of artificial abrasion immediately sprang to the eye.
Indeed so obvious did they seem it may well be asked - how was it that
they had escaped notice before?

As the success of this forgery had even erred the best known experts, famous
paleoantropologist Sir Solly Zuckerman said: "As I have already implied,
students of fossil primates have not been distinguished for caution when
working within the logical constraints of their subject. The record is
so astonishing that it is legitimate to ask whether much science is yet
to be found in this field at all. The story of the Piltdown Man hoax provides
a pretty good answer."

Nebraska Man

In 1922, Henry Fairfield Osborn the manager of American Museum of Natural
History, declared that he found a fossil molar tooth in West Nebraska near
Snake Brook belonging to Pliocene Period. This tooth was allegedly carrying
the common characteristics of both a man and an ape. Very deep scientific
arguments started and some people interpreted this tooth as Pithecanthropus
erectus, and some others claimed it was closer to human beings. This
fossil that became a matter of argument, was called the "Nebraska man".
Its "scientific Latin name" was also given right away: "Hesperopithecus
haroldcook II".

Many authorities gave support to Osborn. Based on this one tooth, the
reconstruction pictures of Nebraska man's head and body were drawn. Moreover,
Nebraska man was even the pictured along with his wife and children, as
a whole family in a natural setting.

All of these scenarios were developed just from one tooth. Evolutionist
circles endorsed this "ghost man" to such an extent that when a researcher
named William Bryan opposed to these biased decisions given by relying
on a single tooth, he was harshly criticized.

Yet, in 1927 the other parts of the skeleton were also found. This tooth
belonged neither to a man nor an ape. It was realized that this tooth belonged
to an extinct and wild American pig species named Prosthennops. William
Gregory entitled his article published in the Science magazine where he
announced this error as: "Hesperopithecus Apparently Not An Ape Nor A Men".

Then all the drawings of Hesperopithecus haroldcook II and his
family were removed immediately from the evolutionary literature with haste.

Ramapithecus

Ramapithecus is known to be the biggest and longest lasting fallacies
of the theory of evolution. This name was given to the fossil records found
in India in 1932 which were allegedly to be the first stage of the split
between the man and the ape which occurred 14 million years ago. It was
used as a solid evidence by the evolutionists for 50-years long, from the
day it was found in 1932, to the day it was revealed to be a total error
in 1982.

American evolutionist Dr. Elwyn Simons wrote in Scientific American
of May 1977 about Ramapithecus: "This extinct primate is the earliest
hominid, or distinctively manlike, member of man's family tree. The finding
of many new specimens of it has clarified its place in human evolution?"
Simons then added confidently, "Ramapithecus has most often been
identified as a member of man's own hominid line."

The importance of Ramapithecus in human evolution was expressed
in Simon's article in Time dated November 1977. He stated: "Ramapithecus
structured to be an ancestor of man. If he isn't, we don't have any clue."

Also in our country, the book named Modern Biology published
by Ministry of Education in 1979 written by Sevinç Karol and his
associates, vigorously accepted the idea of Ramapithecus: It was
stated without doubt that "the oldest known ancestor of human was Ramapithecus
(tailless ape) which was identified from the jaw and teeth fossils found
in Africa and India."

However, if these people had read the article of Robert Eckhardt published
in Scientific American in 1972, they would surely not speak with
such a self-confidence. Eckhardt made 24 different measurements on the
teeth of Ramapithecus and Dryopithecus (an extinct gorilla
species). He then compared these measurements with those he had made on
the chimpanzees. According to these comparisons, the difference between
the measurements of the teeth of the living chimpanzees was bigger than
the difference between Ramapithecus and Dryopithecus. Eckhardt
summarizes the outcome of his studies as follows:

Amid the bewildering array of early fossil hominoids, is there one
whose morphology marks it man's ancestor? If the factor of genetic variability
is considered, the answer appears to be no.

The famous paleoanthropologist Richard Leakey had some suspicions about
Ramapithecus just like Eckhardt. According to Leakey, it was too
early to reach to a definite judgment about Ramapithecus which was
comprised of nothing but a few bones. Leakey summarized his ideas as: "The
case for Ramapithecus as a hominid is not substantial, and the fragmentary
material leaves many questions open."

It was known for a very long time that in contrary to the "U" shaped
jaw bone of the apes, the humans had a parabolic chin structure which would
allow them to speak. And it was assumed that Ramapithecus had a
parabolic chin structure just like the human beings.

However, the erroneous reconstructional drawings coded YPM 13799 made
by Elwyn Simons in 1961, based on the mandibular bones of Ramapithecus
showed parabolic structure except for the incisory teeth. This reconstruction
was accepted by most writers and used in their studies. In 1969, Genet-Varcin
pair showed that by using the same pieces, it was possible to make totally
different reconstuructions with a "U" shape just like it was in the monkeys.
Besides, there were many species within the extant apes which showed Pithecanthropus
characteristics. A baboon species, living in the higher regions of Ethiopia
(Theropithecus galada) had a short but deep face structure and more
little incisory and carpenter teeth than the other apes, just like Ramapithecus
and Australopithecine.

On the left is the skull of a contemporary orangutan,
and on the right is the jaw bone of the fossil Ramapithecus. As
observed, Ramapithecus can not be distinguished from an orangutan
both in terms of its mandibular structure and teeth characteristics.

To sum up; the three most well-known forgeries of the evolutionists are
the Piltdown man, Nebraska man and Ramapithecus. It was understood
that in the case of the Piltdown man, a jaw bone and cranial fragment presented
as important evidences to the evolution of man and allegedly were 500 years
old, were in fact buried under the ground by the evolutionists on purpose.
The cranium actually belonged to a human being and the jaw bone to an ape;
these were also suitably treated by the evolutionists to give them a patina
of age. In the case of the Nebraska man, they had gone further and made
the picture of a creature who allegedly proved the evolution, from setting
out from a molar tooth fossil. He was even pictured along with his wife
and family. Then, it was understood that this tooth belonged to an extinct
pig species. Ramapithecus was also one of the biggest fallacies
of the theory of evolution. This incidence was about the subjective exertion
of an extinct ape species as an evidence to the evolution of man.

Piltdown man, Nebraska man and fossils such as Ramapithecus are
clear evidences indicating that evolutionists do not hesitate to make forgeries
or distort the truth plainly in order to prove their own theories. When
we look at the other so-called evidences of the legend of "the evolution
of man" in the light of these truths, we face a similar situation: There
exists a story that is completely unreal and an army of volunteers
who would do anything to support this hoax.

In the following pages, we are going to depict the inside story of the
evolution of man, by inspecting consecutively the fossils shown as evidence
to the theory.

The Imaginary Evolution of Man

The theory of evolution is based on the hypothesis that the contemporary
man of today has evolved from its primate (ape) ancestors splitting off
from them 4-10 million years ago. Although no consensus has been reached
by the evolutionary researchers, the generally accepted list of imaginary
ancestors of today's man are as follows:

According to the evolutionists the first ancestors of man called Australopithecus,
were creatures which had some humanlike but mostly apelike characteristics.
Some species of the Australopithecus have allegedly become extinct
and the others have developed into the Homo (human) series. According to
the evolutionists, the Australopithecus series had mainly apelike
characteristics and the Homo series had common characteristics with the
man of our day. Especially Homo erectus and its subsequents were
almost identical with the contemporary man.

Today there are 200 species of apes still extant. However, it is assumed
that there have been more than 6500 species of primates that have lived
in ancient times and are extinct now. According to the estimates of the
scientists, only 3% of these primates are known. The animals called Australopithecus
by the evolutionists are actually extinct apes which share some common
structural characteristics with today's apes.

The most important point that deserves focus in examining the fossils
are the criteria employed by the evolutionists while evaluating the fossils.
The primary criteria used in categorising and evaluating the human fossils
are; bipedalism (that is upright walking), cranial capacity and cranial
shape. Various classifications are done according to these criteria.

Yet, some of these criteria, especially the cranial capacity, are quite
unreliable. For example, the cranial capacity of a contemporary ape is
maximum 750 cc. The cranial capacity of men surge between 900-2200 cc.
Among the Australian Aborigin natives, there are quite a number of individuals
who have a brain of around 850 cc.. And the cranial capacity may change
depending on the age and sex. This is why many specialists reach to the
mutual agreement that the cranial capacity is not a reliable means of measurement.

The shape of the cranium is yet another criteria. The craniums of ape
fossils and the craniums of today's apes are very similar to each other.
The craniums of the apes are narrow and long. There is a protruding part
on the top of many of these craniums which helps the jaw muscles to hang
on. Also in some ape species, there are ridges on top of the eyebrows called
"suborbital taurus". The eyes are very close to each other. Incisory teeth
are big and very sharp. The molar teeth change according to the species
and the feeding habits of the apes. The jaw is again dependent on the species
of the ape, having either a U or a V shape.

However, human craniums are large volumed with wide foreheads. The skull
is flat (there are no protrusions). Eyes are wide apart. The shape of the
eyebrow ridges above the eyes change according to the human race. In the
black and white races, this ridge exists very slightly. Yet, in some other
races these ridges are evident. In addition, the mandibles of humans are
very much different from that of the apes having a parabolic structure.
The incisory teeth are small and molar teeth in normal dimensions.

When the postcranium is examined; the most characteristic criteria are
revealed. Arms of the apes are long and their legs are short. Their feet
and fingers have grasping abilities. All apes are quadropedal. The entire
skeleton is designed for a quadropedal body structure. They can stand on
their two feet rarely, only when they want to reach somewhere and get something.
They spend most of their time on all fours.

Bipedalism is a characteristic only of human beings and this quality
is the most distinctive factor that distinguishes human beings from other
animals. A human's hip, pelvis, and back bone and his spinal cord, shortly,
all parts of his skeleton are designed for bipedalism.

Therefore, while interpreting the uncovered fossils, the most important
and binding criteria should be bipedalism. Bipedalism is the most substantial
factor that distinguishes the humans from apes. This is why the focal point
of the arguments must consist of whether various living things at issue
walk upright or not.

The beings that the theory of evolution presents as transitional links
between humans and apes, are either quadropedal apes or human beings who
carry some "racial" characteristics within their structure but have no
common similarities with the apes.

After this short introduction, we may start examining the supposedly
fossils of the evolution myth. The first part of the story is the Australopithecus
who is declared to be the first transitional link from the apes to the
humans.

The Real Story of the Australopithecus

All present Australopithecus fossils were found in the south region
of Africa. The reason why this species is named Australopithecus,
meaning "South African ape" is because these animals have very similar
characteristics to the apes living in our day. Male Australopithecus
are between 1-1.20 meter tall. The height of female Australopithecus
is only the half of the male's just like contemporary apes.

The first fossils which were alleged to belong to this species were
found in a coal mine in 1924 in South African Taung region. The first fossil
defined as Australopithecus consisted of the face and mandibulars
of a young ape and a 410 cc. cranial capacity. The discoverers of the fossil
took it to professor Dr. Raymond Dart, a professor of anatomy, from Witwater
University.

Relying on the slim structure of the cranium of this fossil and thinking
that its teeth looked similar to that of the human beings, Dr. Raymond
Dart inferred that it was a hominid fossil. After a short while, an article
named "Australopithecus: Ape Man in South Africa" was published
in the Nature magazine. Scientists of that period who stated that
the fossil actually belonged to a chimpanzee, did not really take Dart
very seriously. However, insisting that the fossil was a hominid; Dart
persuaded the famous physicist Dr. Robert Broom about the subject and he
dedicated the rest of his life to collect support for this new species
he found. Interestingly enough, his fossil was named as "Dart baby" in
a derisive manner in the science circles. Later on, the evolutionists adopted
this fossil and invented a new species called Australopithecines.
They allocated the first fossil they found as "Australopithecus africanus".

After the discovery of this fossil which was named as "Taung Child"
for being supposed to belong to an infant, primarily the Leakey family
and other paleoanthropologists accelerated their researches. During the
excavations made with the financial support of National Geographic
Magazine, other fossils were also found in South African Kromdraii, Swartkrans
and Makapansgat which were assumed to be Australopithecus again.
Some of these ape fossils had a coarser structure whereas others were slimmer,
smaller and more slender. The fossil which had a coarser structure was
heavier and larger than the other one, had a bigger mandible and a bonelike
protrusion over its cranium as its most outstanding feature. Although all
of these qualities were typical examples of sexual differentiation between
male and female apes of today, the scientists interpreted them persistently
as different species.

In reality, these fossils had not evolved from each other; but were
only individuals from different sexes of the same species. The fact that
these fossils were found to be belonging to the same period provided another
conclusive evidence to this reality. Yet, all of these substantial facts
were overlooked and the slim and slender fossils started to be referred
to as "Australopithecus boisei", while those with a coarser structure
were referred to as "Australopithecus robustus". These still maintain
their positions in the evolutionary literature as the most important pieces
of the evolution of man.

A Young Ape: Australopithecus Africanus

Dart had received considerable reactions from contemporary scientists after
his presentation of the fossil named Australopithecus africanus.
Arthur Keith, prominent anatomist at the time, commented on the fossil
found by Dart and stated the following:

(Dart's) claim is preposterous, the skull is that of a young anthropoid
ape...and showing so many points of affinity with the two living African
anthropoids, the gorilla and chimpanzee, that there cannot be a moment's
hesitation in placing the fossil form in this living group.

According to the evolutionist paleoanthropologists, the common characteristic
of Australopithecus and human beings was their adaptation to bipedalism
after leaving the trees. Dart was led to the idea that the "Taung child"
fossil he had found could stand on its two legs due to the reason that
the part of the skull named "magnum", through which the spinal cord enters
the skull, was more backwards than the human being's and more forward than
the ape's. Setting out from this point, he argued that this animal could
stand on its two feet. This theory which was repudiated by the scientists
of that time, made a return in the 1950's. Yet, not a single piece of skeleton
existed that could be shown as evidence for the assertion of bipedalism.
The specimens in hand consisted of a cranium and some thigh bones, hip
bone and foot bone in a very disorderly condition. Despite the scarcity
of evidence, the evolutionists persisted on their claim of bipedalism.

Lord Zuckermann (Dr. Solly Zuckermann) was maybe one of the people in
the world who examined the Australopithecines family in the most
detailed fashion. Although he was an evolutionist, Zuckermann thought that
the Australopithecus was nothing but an ape. Using the most developed
anatomical research methods with his team of four people, Zuckermann declared
in his research which started in 1954 and lasted for a few years, that
these creatures could not stand on their two feet and did not have a form
between man and ape. Lord Zuckermann and his team's conclusion report included
following results: although these creatures were not similar to any of
the primates living today, they also had no similarity with mankind. In
their finale report, Lord Zuckerman and his team stated these creatures
could not also be claimed to have relationship with the human kind although
they are not alike any primate living today. Claiming that these creatures
were able to stand up and walk still was much more refutable than the theory
that they could walk as a varient of the non-human primates. This is the
reason why this theory cannot be acceptable.

AUSTRALOPITHECUS: AFRICAN APE On the left and below is seen the first fossil "Taung
Child" which was included in the Australopithecus africanus species.
This fossil actually belongs to an infant ape.

Australopithecus africanusAustralopithecus africanus, Sts 71 skull and Sts
36 jaw bone: This two-fragmented illustration is defined as an adolescent
member of A. africanus. Belonging to an extinct ape, this fossil
bears great resemblance to the skull of the orangutans of our day.

These arguments stated by Zuckermann during 1950's were also approved
by the researchers that emerged afterwards. Dean Falk who was a brain specialist
expressed in an article published in 1975 that the Taung cranium belonged
to a newborn ape.

Like humans, (apes and monkeys) go through stages as they grow up.
In his analysis of Taung, Dart did not fully appreciate that infant apes
have not had time to develop features of the skull, such as thickened eyebrow
ridges or attachment areas for heavy neck muscles, that set adult apes
apart from human. Apparently he did not carefully consider the possibility
that Taung's rounded forehead or the inferred position of the spinal cord
might be due to the immaturity of the apelike specimen rather than to its
resemblance to humans."

It is important to point out that the absence of brow ridges which renders
the Australopithecus africanus to be defined as a hominid, is a
feature also displayed in the young gorillas living today.

Thus it is revealed that, this skull named Australopithecus africanus
by the evolutionists does not belong to an ancestor of the human beings;
but rather to a skinny, and most probably a young ape.

The fouls of the evolutionists were not limited by Australopithecus
africanus. All the other members of the Australopithecus series
were also merely apes. In accordance with their expectations, the evolutionists
interpreted some characteristics of these apes to be hominid. However,
the researches reveal that all of the Australopithecus are similar
to the contemporary apes of today in all respects such as the stride style,
brain volume, skull morphology and skeleton structure.

Australopithecines: An Ordinary Quadropedal
Ape Species

Animals named as "Australopithecines" are introduced by the evolutionists
as living beings that are able to stand on their two feet but possess underdeveloped
brains and skeletons. Although some of these scientists admitted that Australopithecus
are similar to apes in many primitive aspects, they advanced a very important
argument relating it to a human: They allegedly claimed that Australopithecus
walked like today's human beings.

On the contrary, the latest scientific researches indicated that Australopithecus,
which is a species found in 1920's, were definitely not bipedal. The assertions
putting forward that these were bipedal can only rest upon wrong and biased
interpretations of their anatomy.

Charles Oxnard, an anatomy professor from Chicago University, is one
of the most appealed evolutionist sciencemen who is shown as reference
on the subject of Australopithecus. Relying on his researches about
Australopithecus fossils, Oxnard declared as follows that these
fossils did not belong to a transitional being between apes and men, therefore
it was not true that these had kinship with human beings;

An important part of today's convential wisdom about human evolution
is based on studies of teeth, jaws and skull fragments of australopithecine
fossils. These all indicate that the close relation of australopithecine
to the human lineage may not be true. All these fossils are both different
than gorillas, chimpanzees and men. Studying as a group, Australopithecine
seems more like to orang-utan.

Oxnard also stated that this species could only walk on all fours:

But because the muscular features of the pelvis are positioned in a
way more like those of the great apes, we must estimate that their muscular
arrangements were therefore rather similar to those associated with climbing
and perhaps quadrupedalism? which parallels most closely he orang-utan,
and contrasts markedly with man who has big articular surfaces in the leg
compared with the arm. They may have been bipedal in a way that is no longer
seen, but have retained abilities for climbing, and perhaps minor arboreal
acrobatics such as might be found in an intermediately sized ape-like creature.

Dean Falk, a brain specialist who has conducted researches more recently
on four different types of Australopithecus fossils said that these
were nothing but apes. Since 1985, many ape-like characteristics of Australopithecuses,
much more than previously supposed, have been found. Opinions regarding
Taung and other Australopithecuses have reversed. Studies of young
researchers like Bill Jungers , Holly Smith, Tim Bromage, Mike Vannier,
and Glenn Conroy are now being questioned. The supporters of the judgment
"Australopithecus is man-like" are not the majority now? The morphology
of Australopithecuses is exteremely similar to the apes'.

The bipedalism feature attributed to Australopithecus was rooted
in the erroneous and biased interpretation of their anatomies and lost
its credibility by the evidences found in the course of time. Instead,
it is said that Australopithecus generally walked on their two feet,
but they were also adapted to climbing and using four feet. Yet, it is
impossible to walk in this style. In order for a living being to use its
energy optimally, it must either walk on its four feet or two feet in an
upright posture. It is not possible for a living being in between to carry
on its existence and generation. This is why the bipedal model ascribed
to the Australopithecus can be said to be totally imaginary.

In his study titled The Antiquity of Human Walking, John R. Napier compares
the walking styles of Australopithecus and human beings as follows:

?in Australopithecus this stabilizing mechanism is imperfectly
evolved? For Australopithecus walking was something of a jog frot.
These hominids must have covered the ground with quick, rather short steps,
with their knees and hips slightly bent; the prolonged stance phase of
the fully human gait must surely have been absent.
Compared with man's stride, therefore, the gait of Australopithecus
is physiologically inefficient. It calls for a dispcopoctionately high
output of energy; indeed, Australopithecus probably found long-distance
bipedal travel impossible.

Robin Crompton who is a computer specialist has demonstrated that this
kind of a "compound" walking style is not possible in the studies he made
in 1996. Crompton reached to the following conclusion: A living being can
either walk fully upright or fully on its four feet. A living style in
the midst is not possible because of high energy consumption. Therefore,
Australopithecus can not be a half-bipedal animal as opposed to
the claims of the evolutionists. Australopithecus is an ordinary
ape that can only stand on all fours.

THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE STRIDES OF MEN AND APESThe developments between the years 1994-1997, blew a
big stroke on the assertions claiming Australopithecus to be the
ancestor of man. First of these was the studies
made by Fred Spoor from Liverpool University. Spoor proved that none of
the hominids except Homo erectus could walk upright on two feet.
Second came the studies of an engineer named Robin Crompton. Crompton found
that deformed stride increased energy consuption two times in the adults.
That is to say that a living being should either be bipedal or quadropedal
to be able to use his energy optimally. Thus it was revealed that Australopithecus
were merely quadropedal apes.As seen in the two
figures below, bipedalism and quadropedalism are two very different acts
and a stride in between is impossible.

The male gorilla cranium is very similar to Australopithecus
robustus. The projection over the skull is for the gripping of
mandibular muscles. Thus chewing act becomes stronger. This feature is
seen in all coarse structured Australopithecus.

Australopithecus boisei seen above, is also named
as OH 5 fossil "Nutcracker man". This is due to his extraordinarily huge
molar teeth (on the right). The absence of fangs caused the jaw structure
of the animal to be resembled to humans. In fact, the absence of fangs
shows that this animal mainly feeds on plants.

The researches made on Australopithecus by using the recent
and most advanced technology, demonstrated that these creatures could not
walk on their two feet and verified all the findings above. In 1994, Fred
Spoor who is an anatomist in Liverpool University Human Anatomy and Cell
Biology Department in England and his team of researchers making bipedalism
studies on fossils, have investigated by using the most recent techniques
if Australopithecus were bipedal or not. With the new technique
they used in their researches, the team examined the involuntary-balancing
mechanism in the ear cochlea of the fossils. Their findings can be summarized
as follows;

"The upright posture and obligatory bipedalism of modern humans are
unique among living primates. The evolutionary history of this behaviour
has traditionally been pursued by functional analysis of the postcranial
skeleton and the preserved footprint trails of fossil hominids. Here we
report a systematic atempt to reconstruct the locomotor behaviour of early
hominids by looking at a major component of the mechanism for the unconscious
perception of movement, namely by examining the vestibular system of living
primates and early hominids. High resolution computed tomography was used
to generate cross-sectional images of the bony labybritine. In contrast,
the semicircular canal dimensions in crania from Southern Africa attributed
to Australopithecus and Paranthropus resemble those of the
great apes."

In the rest of their report, they go on to state that Australopithecus
and hominid fossils of early Homo ages do not show a morphological structure
in consort with the structure of the modern man.

As revealed by all these researches, being just an ordinary ape species
that lived in the past, all that Australopithecus could do was to
stand on their two feet for very short intervals just like today's gorillas
and bulky apes. Actually, the evolutionists who were aiming at finding
an ape fossil that could walk on its two feet, advanced unreal assertions
by making use of lack of information caused due to technological scarcity.

Consequently, these improvements resulted in disagreements between palaeontologists
regarding the direct kinship between Australopithecus and human
beings. The reason is that, anybody who examines the given data objectively
may easily realise that the body structure of Australopithecus is
just the same as tailless huge apes still living today. Finding humanlike
qualities in these animals can only be possible by a biased point of view
and broad imagination.

Similarities of Australopithecus and Orangutans

While including Australopithecus within the status of human beings' common
ancestors; the evolutionists show several characteristics of their jaws
and teeth as evidence to their claim. Australopithecus are introduced
as a hominid with their relevantly smaller front teeth, worn out molar
teeth, strong chewing muscles and a face with lesser depth. However, the
structure of the teeth, jaw and face do not indicate that the animals called
Australopithecus are common ancestors of human beings, but only
reflect their environment and feeding habits.

The teeth, mandible and face shape of Australopithecus fossils
look like Gelada Baboons (Theropithecus) that feed on small items,
rather than human beings. This characteristic of the Gelada Baboon that
lives in upper parts of Ethiopia is observed in Ramapithecus which
is proven to be an orangutan, as well as in Australopithecus. Evolutionist
David Pilbeam describes this similarity which has misled many evolutionist
researchers as below:

Theropithecus species (gelada baboons), both living and extinct,
have large cheek teeth coupled with small incisors, contrasting with the
relatively larger front teeth of species of Papio. Because of heavy use,
geloda molars and premolars become packed close together and are heavily
worn. Jolly relates the "Theropithecus complex", as he has called
it, to the fact that these monkeys feed on small items -seeds, grass corms,
and so forth- in large quantities. Such a diet requires large grinding
cheek teeth and powerful masticatory muscles, while incisors are relatively
unimportant. These features, and others, geladas share with the early hominids
Ramapithecus and Australopithecus.

As seen, the structure of the teeth, jaw and face of Australopithecus
can only show that this animal feeds on small and hard items.

This situation elucidates the same fact: All members of the species
denoted as Australopithecus by the evolutionists are actually extinct
ape species. The variations and diversity within the ape species is so
immense that it is very easy for a person who is taken by a dream of finding
the ancestors of human beings to easily gather the human-like features
of these and then call them as "pre-human" creatures.

As a result, it can be said that all members of Australopithecus
share similarities with the ape species living today. The idea that
these may be the ancestors of human beings is totally a biased, partial
and further, a rootless assertion.

Australopithecus Afarensis or "Lucy"

Until 1974, the most primitive hominid fossils that the evolutionists had
were Australopithecus africanus, Australopithecus boisei and
Australopithecus robustus. Yet, the fact that these fossils were
too young to be the common ancestor of man and ape, was causing a gap in
the theory of evolution. An older fossil had to be found as soon as possible.
Finding out this imaginary common ancestor called as the "lost link", was
almost a matter of honour for the evolutionists. Beginning from 1950's
and up to 1970's, the absence of such a transitional form caused distress.

While making excavations in Ethiopian Hadar Desert in 1974 to find the
ancestors of man, the American paleoanthropologist Donald C. Johnson and
French geologist Maurice Taieb found a skeleton estimated to be 3 million
years old and preserved at a rate of 25%. A year later they found the skeleton
fossils of 13 similar animals and included them within the Australopithecus
species. As they thought that the first fossil had more apelike qualities
than the others, they invented a new species named "Australopithecus
afarensis" and included it in this species. The fossil was named after
as "Lucy".

However, Lucy which was alleged to be the common ancestor of man was
1.20 meters tall and had a skull volume of 410 cc. which rendered its brain
to be much smaller than even the ape standards of our day. Despite all
these facts, this long armed and short legged ape which weighed 45 kg.
in males and 29 kg. in females was still claimed to be the ancestor of
man.

Although the evolutionists knew that Lucy was merely an extinct ape
species, they totally ignored its apelike qualities in order to maintain
its status as the ancestor of man. This approach is still very common.
In National Geographic's March 1996 issue, the result of the recent
researches about Australopithecus afarensis are described as below:

"On the other hand, Randall Susman, Jack Stern and William Jungers
of the State University of New York at Stony Brook see a curvature in Lucy's
finger and toe bones resembling that found in tree-dwelling apes. Her longer
arms certainly would have helped her climb between branches. The Stony
Brook specialists also see evidence in Lucy's ankle and pelvis that suggests
she would have walked with slightly bent legs. They reckon she spent considerable
time in trees and may well have slept among the branches."

The most important reason why Lucy was alleged to be the ancestor of man
lied in the belief that the animal walked upright. The fossil's anatomical
structure was thought to reveal its bipedalism. Lucy's anatomy and its
interpretations gave way to various discussions and the evolutionists were
not able to reach to a consensus on the subject. The founder of the fossil,
Donald C. Johnson, had stated in an article he wrote in 1994, that even
the evolutionists could not reach to a common consent on Lucy's locomotion
until then, and that all the assumptions on the subject could go no further
than a hypothesis and speculation;

"The combination of a relatively short, but robust, humarus and a long
forearm is unlikely to resolve the debate about locomotion in Australopithecus
afarensis - which has been concerned as much with incompatible evolutionary
models for the interpretation of functional morphology as with divergent
interpretations of the fossils themselves."

Being admitted in the 1970's, the idea that Lucy walked completely upright
started to be questioned even among the evolutionists along with the new
researches completed. As more data was compiled and new researchers
treating the subject objectively brought new findings into daylight, these
doubts started to be outspoken more frequently.

Apes and some other animals have a limited ability to stand upright.
Lucy's anatomic structure shows that it can stand on its two feet only
as much as an ape.

Apes
and some other animals have a limited ability to stand upright. Lucy's
anatomic structure shows that it can stand on its two feet only as much
as an ape.

Each supplementary research disclosed Lucy's ape-like characteristics
further. Some researchers compared the apes still living in our day with
the fossils of Australopithecus afarensis species. One of these scientists
was Adrienne L. Zhilman from the University of Santa Cruz. According to
Zhilman, Australopithecus afarensis could be a variation of Pygmy Chimpanzees.
Zhilman had made a comparison between Pygmy chimpanzees and Lucy, and declared
how startling the similarities between the two were. Their body dimensions,
body structures and cranial capacities were almost the same. Again according
to Zhilman, the way that Pygmy Chimpanzees used their arms and feet was
very much similar to Lucy.

Apes and some other animals have a limited ability to stand upright.
Lucy's anatomic structure shows that it can stand on its two feet only
as much as an ape.

Each supplementary research disclosed Lucy's ape-like characteristics
further. Some researchers compared the apes still living in our day with
the fossils of Australopithecus afarensis species. One of these scientists
was Adrienne L. Zhilman from the University of Santa Cruz. According to
Zhilman, Australopithecus afarensis could be a variation of Pygmy
Chimpanzees. Zhilman had made a comparison between Pygmy chimpanzees and
Lucy, and declared how startling the similarities between the two were.
Their body dimensions, body structures and cranial capacities were almost
the same. Again according to Zhilman, the way that Pygmy Chimpanzees used
their arms and feet was very much similar to Lucy.

Briefly, Lucy's skeleton and anatomy ascertained the fact that this
creature could not walk upright as asserted. In addition to this fact,
its cranial capacity which is even too small for an ape, its small body,
long arms and legs, curved hand and foot bones prove that this living being
carried no humanlike qualities.

Another evidence of the fact that Australopithecus afarensis
is an ape, is its teeth array. In the evolutionist literature, it is stated
that the teeth array structure of Australopithecus afarensis was
between men and apes. Whereas, the teeth and mandibular structure of Australopithecus
afarensis look very similar to that of Ramapithecus which today
has been included in the orangutan class.

This is the reason why many evolutionists, who take the ape-like features
of Lucy into account, place it in the evolutinary chain of apes instead
of the evolutinonary chain of men and define them as the ancestors of apes.
In an article titled "Man's Roots in Question" published in New
Scientist magazine in 1997, it is stated:

"The earliest fossils that appear to be human are about 4.4 million
years old. But if Easteal is right, these "human" fossils are not human
after all.
His results also suggest that Australopithecus africanus, a descendant
of A.afarensis, did not die out, as most anthropologists believe, but was
the ancestor of chimps. Another descendant of A.afarensis , Australopithecus
robustus, which anthropologists believe also died out, could be the ancestor
of gorillas. This would also explain why there are no fossil records of
ancient chimpanzees and gorillas, says Easteal."

This situation implies that although the evolutionists
do not openly declare, it is clearly acknowledged that Australopithecus
afarensis, which was sought to be brought to the status of the ancestor
of man with big hopes, is merely an extinct ape species. Instead of throwing
this species on which they spent so much effort aside, some evolutionists
still try to use it in another evolution legend, namely in the evolution
scheme drawn for the ape species.

A supposed A. afarensis colony is pictured during
a stride. This drawing published in one of the leading evolutionist publications,
National Geographic, is one of the numerous pictures drawn to place
the notion of evolution in the subconscious of masses.

AustralopithecusRamidus

One of the fossils that the evolutionists have lastly included in the Australopithecus
series, is Australopithecus ramidus or Ardipithecus ramidus.
This is a very recent classification. It was found in Ethiopia by a team
of researchers from California University headed by Tim D. White and J.
Desmond Clark and announced to the public in September 1994. Nearly all
hand finger bones and 7 wrist bones were found belonging to this living
being which was supposed to be 4,4 million years old. His hands are long
and curved.

It is assumed that A. ramidus was 120 cm. tall. His teeth look
similar to apes. His baby teeth are even more similar to apes than the
other Australopithecus. Other fossils which were found along with
Ramidus show that this creature lived in forests on top of trees.
Evolutionists generally think that it is even more primitive than Lucy.

Evolutionists who have learned much from their previous mistakes have
not yet concluded their remarks by stating that this creature was the ancestor
of man as they are afraid of facing another great loss. Generally, in articles
relating Australopithecus ramidus; it is written that it has not
yet been certified whether this creature is the ancestor of men or apes.
Besides, it is stated that this fossil is the most primitive among the
species asserted to be the ancestor of man. In reality, Australopithecus
ramidus is nothing but an ape.

Footprints in Laetoli Do Not Belong to Lucy but
A Real Man

The footprints found in 1978 by Mary Leakey in Ethiopia's Laetoli region
over volcanic ash layers, made up an important part of the evolutionary
propaganda. These footprints were displayed as the most solid proof of
Lucy's bipedalism. It was announced that the footprints were 3.6 million
years old like Lucy and that they were an evidence of its upright stride.

As a matter of fact, the diagnosis was true for the most part: Footprints
were indeed as old as Lucy and it was clear that they had been left by
a living being walking upright. Yet, there was no evidence that these footprints
belonged to an Australopithecus afarensis
like Lucy.

However, according to Johnson; the writer of the book named Lucy, these
footprints should have been left by Australopithecus afarensis in
any case. Do you wonder why?? Because otherwise it would be a catastrophe
for the evolutionists to accept that modern man lived in such an early
date.

Finally, these footprints which could well be left by actual men, were
attributed to Australopithecus afarensis as a result of the biased
and prejudiced interpretations of the evolutionists. Instrinsically, it
was very clear that these footprints belonged to actual human beings. Paleoanthropologist
Timothy White who worked with Mary Leakey remarked:

"Make no mistake about it? They are like modern human footprints? The
external morphology is the same. There is a well-shaped modern heel with
a strong arch and a good ball of the foot in front of it. The big toe is
straight in line. It doesn't stick out to the side like an ape toe, or
like the big toe in so many drawings you see of Australopithecus
in books."

After examining the footprints, Louis Robins from North California University
made the following comments:

The arch is raised -the smaller individual had a higher arch than I
do- and the big toe is large and aligned with the second toe? the toes
grip the ground like human toes. You do not see this in other animal forms

Briefly, it was impossible for these supposed 3,6 year old footprints to
be of Lucy's. There was actually not a relation between these 3.6 million
year old footprints and Lucy. The reason is that having curved hands and
feet, and using its front feet while walking, Lucy could possibly not have
left these prints. The only reason why it was thought that these footprints
belonged to A. afarensis lied in the fact that this fossil was found
in a volcanic layer which was supposed to be 3.6 million years old. As
it was thought that humans could have not lived in such an early date,
the prints were attributed to A. afarensis.

Impartial examinations on the footprints revealed their real owners:
in reality, these footprints consisted of 20 fossilized footprints of a
10 year old modern human, and 27 footprints of a younger one. And they
were, certainly modern people like us.

Kanapoi Elbow Bone Fossil

One of the most flagrant cases of wand and waving to deflect evidence that
could be most embarrasing to the idea of human evolution involves a fossil
found at Kanapoi, southwest of Lake Rudolf (Turkana) in northern Kenya.
This fossil, known as KP 271, is the lower end of a left upper arm bone
(distal end of the humerus). It was found in 1965 by Bryan Patterson (Harvard
University), and is in an excellent state of preservation. The most recent
dating of the fossil gives it an age of 4.5 million years (m.y.a)."
This is the reason why this fossil is considered as the oldest hominid
fossil ever found. It is even older than Lucy and other Australopithecus.

Well, who does this fossil belong to?

Meeting in 1967 to define KP 271, researchers like B.Patterson and W.W.Howells
have argued that though these fossils looked similar to human beings, they
actually belonged to Australopithecus.

Howells, who used the most widespread method of comparison in his paleontological
researches, compared KP 271 with an ape humerus, the humerus belonging
to Australopithecus robustus which was the only similar fossil known
until then and a human humerus. Howells and his assistant Patterson published
the report of their study in Science magazine, on 7 April, 1967.

In these diagnostic measurements, Kanapoi Hominid 1 (the original name
given to the fossil) is strikingly close to the means of the human sample.

The evolutionist scientists who found that the Kanapoi specimens looked
dramatically like human specimens came up with an unexpected result. Yet,
this situation did not alter their initial preconceptions. Although Howells
and Patterson accepted the similarity of the bones to modern man?s bones,
they still went on to assert that this fossil belonged to an Australopithecus
as the fact that such a dated fossil belonged to a modern man was unacceptable
for them.

Further computer analysis of many more measurements revealed even more
dramatically the similarity of KP 271 to modern humans. Henry McHenry (University
of California, Davis) reported the results of his computer based researches
he conducted in 1975 in one of his articles as follows; ?The results show
that the Kanapoi specimen, which is 4 to 4.5 million years old, is
indistinguishable from modern Homo sapiens?"

In the following years, other researchers (such as David Pilbeam and
Brigette Senuts) proved with many experiments and comparative studies that
the KP 271 fossil was identical with the Homo sapiens bones. However,
despite all these researches and manifest evidences, even the owners of
these researches did not personally admit that this fossil could belong
to Homo sapiens. All of the evolutionist researches made since 1965
concluded that this fossil looked very much similar to Homo sapiens bones,
but still belonged to Australopithecus africanus species.

Why, then is it still thought that this fossil belongs to A. africanus
and not Homo sapiens? The head of the first research done
on the fossil, Howells, writing in 1981, fourteen years after the fossil
was first ascribed to africanus, gives us the reason:

The humeral fragment from Kanapoi, with a date of about 4.4 billion,
could not be distinguished from Homo sapiens morphologically or
by multivariate analysis by Patterson and myself in 1967 (or by much more
searching analysis by others since then). We suggested that it might represent
Australopithecus because at that time allocation to Homo
seemed prepostrenous, although it would be the correct one without the
time element.

As it is clearly observed, this elbow bone named KP 271 belonged to an
actual human being, but was ascribed to Australopithecus africanus
who allegedly lived in that time slice just for the sake of placing it
within the imaginary scheme of the evolution of man. The conviction that
such an early dated human remain could not exist influenced the interpretation
of this fossil to a great extent. This situation actually reflects the
general rule of the evolutionary theory: According to this ideology, the
expectations set up previously always outrun the actual facts.

The Miracle that the Theory of Evolution
Can Not Explain: Bipedalism

Man?s stride is a very special act unprecedented in none of the other living
beings. The human beings who perform this act so easily are usually unaware
of how complex this act actually is. A more detailed examination of this
act will make it more clear that the incident rests upon extremely sensitive
balances.

When the first step is taken, only the coming of the second step
can stop man from falling down. When the person wants to take a step; the
pelvis bone, the legs and other parts of the body engage in a series of
muscle movements. Gravity forms the energy to withstand the acceleration
of the body. When a foot is swing forward, the centre of gravity of the
body is given forward. Meanwhile, the other foot touches the ground to
provide balance. Pelvis bone plays a very important role in this movement
as the rotation angle of the pelvis bone determines how far ahead the foot
can go. Also, the muscles on the bone help to maintain the balance of the
body when the foot is swung forward.

All the while, the foot behind the body's centre of gravity provides
the source of energy which moves the body forward. Ground is first pushed
by the heel, then by the toe and energy is produced by the walking
person through the usage of the muscles. This is the "pushing" stage of
walking. The foot at the back passes over to the starting point of the
walking act, that is, the "swinging" stage, as soon as its interaction
with the ground is over. As the foot is swung forward, it does not hit
the ground because the knee, wrist and pelvis are slightly bent. The acceleration
is relatively slowed down due to the slightly high pose of the foot while
it is swung forward. Before the foot swung ahead steps on the ground, the
knees flatten but the wrist remains to be bent. Hence, the heel touches
on the ground first. With the stepping of the heel on the ground, the circle
is completed and the other foot enters the swinging stage once more.

Ebenhart and his friends who made studies during World War II to develop
artificial legs and widened the scope of their researches later on, found
out that the body was moving its center of gravity in space with minimum
energy by means of a series of several deterministic factors. In man?s
stride, many factors like gravity, acceleration of the body and balance
interact with each other in harmony and provide that minimum energy is
spent during the action.

Human stride is realized in such a scrupulous
balance and precise adjustment that no robot can be made that can perform
this movement despite the time consuming trials on the subject. The robots
which are manufactured adopting man's stride model lose their balance and
fall down as soon as they lift up their foot to take a step due to the
hopeless failure in the adjustment of the center of gravity. In an experiment
designed to overcome this negative effect, a relatively big pendulum was
placed at the back of the robot, and it was adjusted as to sway to the
opposite direction of the foot that is lifted up to take a step. The limping
walking style attained through this method could only be carried on at
a constant speed. The movement ability of man who can change his speed
as he likes, can not be imitated at all despite all efforts.

The most interesting point is that, human beings
never have to plan or think how they are going to walk while doing it.
Actually, man accomplishes a difficult movement such as that, unconsciously,
as if it had to happen anyway. Being quite prone to fail if left to the
control of the person, the act of walking is quite a serious action not
to be left to human's responsibility just like respiration, the functioning
of the stomach and liver, and beating of the heart.

This situation raises a very important question;
How did the human being learn to walk in this way? How did he happen to
acquire such an ability during the "evolutionary process"?

It goes without saying that the evolutionists
have no answer available to this question.

Is Bipedalism An Evolutionary Advantage?

The evolutionary theories put forward regarding the root causes of bipedalism,
rest upon speculations and estimations rather than serious studies. The
reason is that the evolutionists face a very big problem: When examined
in terms of mechanics, it is seen that quadropedalism is more "superior"
than bipedalim. A living being able to move on all fours can run faster
and has more chance to survive. Bipedal stride is both harder and slower.
Therefore, a thesis claiming that bipedalism evolved out of quadropedalism
cannot be explained by natural selection which is based on the argument
of survival of the fittest.

If we think in terms of evolutionary criteria, we have to contend that
bipedal stride of man is more "advanced" and "successful" than the quadropedal
ape. Yet, it can not be said that contemporary apes are unsuccessful in
terms of evolution, because they possess the characteristics most befitting
to their environment and they have the ability to move in the most appropriate
way for themselves. Niles Eldredge states with a question that the idea
of "improvement of creatures through evolution" is logically untrue. Do
plant and animal species really improve and develop into a more complex
structure? If this is the case, then should we consider the simple and
unchanged life forms, such as sponge, as evolutionary failures?? The evolutionary
slogan "the evolutional is inevitable" should be replaced with "why apes
are succesful".

Theory of evolution is absolutely paradoxical about this subject: According
to the theory, transition from ape to man (hence from ape's stride to man's
stride) should be considered to be an "improvement". However, ape's stride
is easier, faster and more efficient compared to man's stride? Human beings
can neither proceed by jumping from tree to tree without stepping on the
ground at all like chimpanzees, nor run 125 km/hr like a cheetah. On the
contrary, man relatively moves in a much more slower fashion on the ground
due to its bipedal stride. Again for the same reason, he is one of the
most defenseless creatures in nature in terms of movement and protection.

If we admit the evolutionary argument, we must assent to the idea that
man?s first ancestor split off from the apes and started to walk on its
two feet in an upright posture. Yet, since bipedalism is a disadvantage
rather than an advantage, natural selection would eliminate this "ancestor
of man". This is one of the biggest contradictions within evolution itself.
As a result of this inconsistency, the French L?Express magazine
published several articles stating that apes were superior to men in terms
of evolution, so they could have evolved from them.

"Explanations" of the Evolutionists on Bipedalism

Evolutionists are far from bringing a logical explanation to the emergence
of bipedalism. Their interpretations on the subject do not depend on any
concrete facts, but rather speculations produced out of their imagination.
Sometimes, it can even be observed that these speculations are also covered
up with an ideological and emotional disguise. Ilhan Selçuk declared
that the first ape that is supposed to stand on its two feet was a "leftist",
and set a very good example for the emotional nature of the evolutionists.

"Donald C. Johnson named the first human passing from horizontal position
to the vertical as Australopithecus afarensis; later on, this man who stood
on his feet for the first time was called as "Lucy". Which innate instinct
and external effect caused man to stand on his feet while he was walking
like an animal?... Why had he diverged from the majority while walking
on all fours? Wasn't this man who stood up for the first time making a
revolution? Maybe, this man standing up was the first "leftist"....

Other theories seemingly more scientific, actually consist of groundless
speculations and interpretations on the root causes of bipedalism. Evolutionary
arguments of both Darwin's era and modern times rest upon baseless speculations.

Since the science of genetics and hereditary laws were not very well
known in the 19th century, explaining bipedalism seemed easy for
Darwin and his followers. The most popular theory was that the apes living
in the savannas of Africa stretched their necks in order to look over the
high bushes and thus bipedalism originated. It did not take too long to
understand that this Lamarckist theory was entirely incorrect.

Contemporary evolutionists assert only a single thesis regarding the
origins of bipedalism. However, when examined closer, it is possible to
see that this theory presented by evolutionists by the reasoning of "best
of the worst", is far from bringing an explanation to the origins of bipedalism
just like the previous ones. According to the "theory of transition
from woods to the open field", the common ancestors of men and apes used
to live together in the woods in the past. With the reduction of woodlands
and for some other reason, some of them passed over to the open fields
which gave way to bipedalism as a result of adaptation. Thus, the roads
of the apes in the trees and bipedal men living in the fields separated,
and both started to carry on with their evolution in their own direction.

The famous Science magazine explains bipedalism exactly as follows:

Bipedality, the definitive characteristic of the earliest hominids,
has been regarded as an adaptive response to a transition from forested
to more-open habitats in East Africa sometime between 12 million and 5
million years ago.

Although this "theory of transition from woods to the open field" receives
a lot of support, it is extremely baseless. Primarily, this kind of an
adaptation is impossible on molecular level. Even if it is assumed to have
occured, there is no evidence of it in the fossil records. Furthermore,
according to this theory, woodlands in East Africa should have started
to diminish gradually. Yet the studies have proved just the opposite and
disclosed that East Africa did not undergo such a change. Studies conducted
by J.D.Kingston in Kenya in 1995 reveal concrete evidence to prove this
theory wrong. Kingston writes:

Analyses of the stable carbon isotopic composition {d13
C} of paleosol carbonate and organic matter from the Tugen Hills succession
in Kenya indicate that a heterogeneous environment with a mix of C3 and
C4 plants has persisted for the last 15.5 million years. Open grasslands
at no time dominated this porsion of the rift valley. The observed d13
C values offer no evidence for a shift more-closed C3 environments to C4
grassland habitats. If hominids evolved in East Africa during the Late
Miocene, they did so in an ecologically diverse setting.

Briefly, transition from the woodlands to savanna environment in East Africa
never realized. The plantation in this region remains the same for millions
of years.

Even if assessed logically, the theory on the roots of bipedalism is
unacceptable. It is asserted that the shrinking of woods urged the apes
to travel to the open fields and transfer to bipedal stride. How rational
is this idea? In our day, do the shrinking woods lead some apes to descend
from the trees and adapt to the ground environment? Is it possible that
these apes started using tools after descending from the trees and becoming
bipedal? Are these quadropedal apes going to be bipedal by means of a "magical
stick"?

There is no doubt that the answer to these questions will be negative.
In case of the declining of trees, the most natural behaviour of the apes
would be migrating to another region. Or else, these apes would die out
as a result of the destruction of their homelands. There is no basis for
the theory claiming that the apes have come down from the trees somehow
and adapted to the conditions on the ground.

The evolutionists assert that Australopithecus
are living beings able to walk on their two feet, but unable to adapt completely
to such a way of movement. The computer based studies made by Robin Crompton
(seen above) reveal that a living being should walk either on its two feet
or four feet. A movement in between these two is impossible as it is very
unavailing. Therefore, the assertion that Australopithecus walked
on their two feet in an imperfect fashion is untrue. Australopithecus had
the stride style exactly of the apes of our day.

A recent evolutionist, Ulug Nutku confesses the insufficiency of the theory
of the shrinking of woods as follows:

The shrinking of the woods can be considered as the initiatory factor
for the the process of turning to be a human. This is a paleoanthological
data. Although Napier's thesis is appropriate, it leaves out the question
of why did the ape stay in the forest while an animal species went out
of the forest and started to become a human? As the degree of speculation
is decreased, it is becoming more difficult to reply this question, at
least for the present. Hermann Klaatsch had given a very interesting answer
at the beginning of the century when anthropology was still too young.
According to Klaatsch, hominid apes attemped to be a human but theirs was
an "unfortunate effort". They could not go up in the evolution ladder and
drew back to the "protective darkness of the forests". But this time the
question remains "why the apes could not succeed?"

There are many questions besides the question of "why the apes could not
succeed?", and all of these still remain unanswered.

Another Monkey Type: Homo Habilis

Until 1960?s, there was an uncoverable and wide gap between Australopithecus
and Homo erectus. These were very different from each other; Australopithecus
were creatures with long arms, short legs, a small brain and organs
suitable for climbing. Found towards the end of the 19th. century, Homo
erectus was indistinguishable from today?s man in terms of its skeleton
structure and his tallness, his teeth, mandibular and cranial structure
were as modern as to make him one of the contemporary races. It had become
necessary to fill this gap between these two different structures.

Homo habilis was invented as a result of this need.

In 1959, Mary Leakey found a skull fragmented into 100 pieces while
making a research in Olduvai Vally, East Africa. The capacity of this cranium
was not more than 500cc and had a primitive and protruding structure just
like Australopithecus and contemporary monkeys. After Leakey completed
her examination, she concluded that this skull belonged to a hominid which
was killed by a hard object hit on the head. Setting out from this preconception,
Mary Leakey judged that this creature had the skills to use stone tools,
and even it was "civilised" enough to kill another member of his species
with these tools. Due to that reason, the real owners of these fossils
were called "killer apes".

However, after a while Mary Leakey changed her mind and said that the
capacity of this primitive creature's cranium was not big enough to manufacture
tools. According to Leakey, only more intelligent beings could manufacture
the stone tools found around the fossils. The owners of these stone tools
could absolutely not be these primitive creatures.

In 1964, Louis Leakey and his team found four more new fossil samples
in the researches they made around the same region. Those fossils they
found were again cranial and mandibular fragments tragically scattered
around. Judging that their molar tooth resembled that of the human beings,
Leakey measured the capacity of the cranium although it was shattered and
found his cranial capacity to be 640 cc. He again argued that this skull
volume was sufficient to assume that this creature was a hominid.
Louis Leakey believed that he finally had found the traces of the living
creatures who manufactured the stone tools.

According to Mary Leakey, both the 500cc skull she found priorly and
the 640 cc skull belonged to the hominids, ancestors of modern men. However,
the more advanced hominid in the evolution ladder had hunted the other
and moreover, fed on it. The stone pieces they had found, must have had
been the weapons which the more developed hominids used while hunting the
others. Mary Leakey named this species which she thought to be more
developed "Homo habilis", meaning 'tool using man'. The others who
are assumed to be killed and eaten by this species were included among
Australopithecus who was placed at one stage lower in the evolution
ladder.

After the finding of this fossil, the researches of Leakey family gained
a new velocity. Louis Leakey's 23 year old son Richard Leakey started to
make a research in Kenya's Rudolph Lake region funded by the National
Geographic Magazine. During these researches, many fossils were
found which would be placed in the Australopithecus class later
on.. In 1972, a fossil was unearthed in East Rudolph which triggered diverse
debates in the history of paleoanthropology. This was a complete cranium
with the lone lack of a mandible. The skull was composed of almost 300
pieces. These pieces were put together by Richard Leakey and his wife Meave
Leakey and then officially registered in the Kenya National Museum
as KNM-ER 1470 (Kenya National Museum-East Rudolph 1470). This fossil was
also included in the category of Homo habilis.

Misinterpretation of Homo Habilis

Homo habilis has been the subject of many serious discussions. The
reason is the scarcity and the imperfection of the fossils classified as
Homo habilis. The skeleton and the skull of Homo habilis
are very rarely unearthed side by side. This has led to many speculations
regarding which species it belonged to.

Homo habilis species has many common characteristics with the
apes named Australopithecus. It has an simian skeleton structure
with long arms and short legs just like Australopithecus. Its fingers
and toes are fit for climbing. These qualities show that Homo habilis
spent most of its time among trees.

The cranial capacities of most of the fossils designated as Homo
habilis do not exceed 650 cc. This volume is quite close to that of
today?s gorillas. Besides, his jaw structure which is very similar to that
of the contemporary apes proves that it is certainly an ape.

As we have stated, Homo habilis bears immense similarities to
Australopithecus. When assessed with his general cranial characteristics,
it looks more like Australopithecus Africanus. Just like Australopithecus
africanus, Homo habilis neither has eyebrow projections and this feature
caused it to be misinterpreted in the past and presented as a being similar
to humans.

Especially, the fossil number KNM-ER 1470 has been subject to many interpretations
by his lacking of this enormous eyebrow ridges and his large cranial capacity
higher than the average Homo habilis. Thus, many researchers did
not hesitate to designate KNM-ER 1470 as Homo sapiens.

On the contrary, it is not true that; KNM-ER 1470's wide and long structured
forehead, hardly visible eyebrow ridges, its deprivation of the protruding
over the skull which is called 'saggital crest' in gorillas, and 750 cc
cranial capacity, make it look like a human being. J.E. Cronin explains
why this craium can not be similar to that of a human being. Homo habilis
is just one of the archaic apes classified as Australopithecus
by the evolutionists:

?KMN-ER 1470, like other early Homo specimens, shows many morphological
characteristics in common with gracile australopithecines that are
not shared with later specimens of the genus Homo?

On the same subject, C. Loring Brace from the University of Michigan states
that the size of the jaw and the molar teeth indicates that ER1470 had
exactly the same face and tooth structure as Australopithecus.

Another well-known paleontologist Bernard Wood comments that there are
no phenetic or cladistic evidences indicating this skull is similar to
H.Erectus or H. Sapiens. In phenetic aspect, KNM-ER 1470
is comparible with the other Homo habilis fossils found in Olduvai.

The reason why KNM-ER 1470 was interpreted to be a human fossil
for a while is due to the subjective and misleading interpretation of Richard
Leakey who is the founder of the fossil. Leakey tried to imply that the
fossil had some simian characteristics, but its cranium was too big for
an ape. The main reason was to earmark this creature as a transitional
link.

Yet, the 750 cc skull of KNM-ER in no way dismisses it from being an
ape species and renders it a hominid as there exist many apes having the
same skull volume. When the ape skulls are at issue, the evolutionists
usually refer to the chimpanzees who generally have lesser brain volumes
and disregard the gorillas for the most part. The cranial capacity of chimpanzees
surge between 300-500cc, at an average of 400 cc. Gorillas? average cranial
capacity is 500 cc, but the bigger ones may have a cranial capacity of
700 cc and even 750 cc.

As a result, the large cranial capacity of KNM-ER 1470 indicates that
it can not be a hominid but a coarse ape. Estimated to be a male, 1470's
big teeth and large cranial capacity shows that also his body is coarse
in consort with these factors.

The fact that 1470 had no eyebrow ridges does not prove tahat 1470 is
a transitional link. In many primate species living today, there are no
eyebrow ridges. For instance, contemporary orangutans have flat and non-protruding
skulls. This structure is a common feature the orangutans share with KNM-ER
1470s and other Homo habilis. That is the reason why the assertion
claiming that "the absence of eyebrow protrusions in the fossils is a hominid
characteristic" is not true.

The datas reveal that KNM-ER 1470 is structurally an ape similar to
Australopithecus. The protruding structure of the face, extraordinarily
big molar teeth and the cranial capacity too small to belong to a human
being disclose this fact evidently. Besides, 1470?s teeth are exactly the
same as Australopithecus.

One wonders whether other Homo habilis fossils had more human-like
features or not?

No! The Homo habilis fossils unearthed lately yield very important
data regarding the skeleton structure and stride style of this species.
The most important of these fossils which has helped settle many controversial
issues on Homo habilis was OH 62 which was unearthed in 1986 in
Olduvai Valley by Tim White. The approximate age of OH 62 is assumed
to be 1.8 million years. It is composed of a damaged skull, an arm, and
some feet bones as well as teeth. Almost all of the characteristics of
this skull were in consort with the other Homo habilis fossils such
as OH 24, ER 1813 and ER 1470. However, the height of this animal was shorter
even according to ape standards, being only 105 cm.. Its skeleton indicated
that this creature had long arms and short legs. These characteristics
also exist in the apes living today who use them for climbing. Another
interesting point is that its skeleton structure looks very much similar
to A.aferensis, which was comprehended to be nothing but an ape.

Other skull fossils unearthed have also proven that the other fossils
included in Homo habilis species were absolutely not ?hominid?.
Especially KNM-ER 1813 found at Koobi Fora in 1973 by Kamoya Kimeu sets
a good example. ER 1813 of 510cc which had striking similarities with ER
1470 skull was categorized under Australopithecus until the beginning
of 1980?s. The situation changed when the similarity of this skull
with ER 1470 caused speculative arguments. Today, KNM-ER 1813 is known
to be an Homo habilis just like KNM-ER 1470. Yet, some sources still
insist that this is an Australopithecus.

All of these indicate that actually there is not a considerable difference
between the fossils of Australopithecus class and the fossils of
Homo habilis class. All of these consist of different ape species
that cannot walk on two feet and have very small cranial capacities compared
to man. What the evolutionists do is to try to generate a starting point,
a first link for the legend of "evolution from apes to human" by making
use of some characteristics of these fossils.

Thus far, we have seen that Homo habilis was nothing else but
an ape species. Until recently, the evolutionists asserted Homo habilis
to be a being with an apelike skull, yet a human-like body and posture.
According to them, Homo habilis was a bipedal able to walk upright.
Evolutionists should well have had reasons for such an argument.

Until 1986, body and skeleton bones of Homo habilis were not
unearthed side by side. Yet, some of the fossils unearthed in the same
layer with Homo habilis were assumed to belong to this species.
Some KNM-ER 1481 and ER 1472 thigh bones which were indistinguishable from
Homo sapiens were unearthed within the same layer but kilometers
away from Homo habilis. These fossils were as well thought to belong
to Homo habilis species.

When OH 62 fossil was found in 1986, prevailing opinion regarding Homo
habilis had changed. OH 62 had a typical Homo habilis sort of
skull and a body very smilar to that of Australopithecus. His long
arms and short legs showed it had a very convenient body for climbing.
It was now understood what kind of a being Homo habilis was: Homo
habilis was fully an apelike being. Thus, it was realized that Homo
habilis was an actual ape just like other Australopithecus.

Then, how could the thigh bones belonging to real humans unearthed within
the same layer and dated equally with Homo habilis fossils be interpreted?
If these thigh bones did not belong to Homo habilis, then to whom
did they belong?

Before long, these thigh bones were included in Homo erectus
species. The modern structure of these bones actually compelled them to
be categorised under Homo sapiens species; but these were designated
as Homo erectus just because of their supposedly old ages.

Right after these two species, come well-known human fossils, tall and
walking totally upright. The sole difference between the species termed
as Homo erectus, Homo sapiens neanderthalis, or Homo sapiens
archaic is nothing but various racial characteristics.

Real Human Fossils

We observed that Australopithecus and Homo Habilis were no
different than real apes. However the postulated evidences about the legend
of human evolution are not limited with these. These two ape species constitute
the preliminary two stages of the so-called evolution process.

After Homo habilis, Homo erectus comes next in the imaginary
scheme of the evolution of man. Homo erectus is followed by respectively,
Homo sapiens archaic, Neanderthal man and Cro-Magnon. These
fossils presented as intermediate forms succeeding Homo habilis
by the evolutionists are nothing else but real humans as we?ll study in
the following pages. There are only some racial differences between them.

In other words, evolution scheme is nothing more than an array made
by the successive arrangement of different ape species followed by the
successive arrangement of different human races. Apes end with Homo
habilis. Human races begin with Homo erectus.

After Homo habilis, the cranial capacities of the human fossils
in the imaginary human evolution scheme vary between 900-1600cc. Evolutionists
seek to generate a "process of skull enlarging" by making use of this data.
However these different capacities are within the range of the cranial
capacities of today's man. Intrinsically, the cranial capacities of Neanderthal
man and Cro-Magnon are above contemporary man's average.

After this introductory information, we can now start to study the real
human fossils which are presented as intermediate forms and labeled as
"primitive" by the evolutionists. In the following pages we?ll examine
these fossils respectively from the youngest to the oldest.

Cro-Magnon Race

The fossils of Cro-Magnon man were found in March 1868, in a rocky
shelter in Les Eyzies, France. These individuals anatomically had no difference
from the modern humans.

It is estimated that the Cro-Magnon man lived 30,000 years ago.
It has a dome shaped cranium and a broad forehead. His cranium of 1,600
cc. is above the average of contemporary man.

Although Cro-Magnon race is known by the "Cro-Magnon I"
cranium firstly unearthed, various skulls found in other regions of Europe
can have some different characteristics. Some of them have thick projecting
eyebrows and also have the bony protrusion behind their skulls which is
characteristic of Neanderthal man and Homo erectus.

Although Cro-Magnon man is accepted as a European race, the skull
of the people living in Europe today are not similar to his skull. However
the capacity and shape of this cranium looks much more similar to that
of some races living in Africa and tropical regions today. Depending on
this similarity, it can be stated that the owner of the skull Cro-Magnon
I and his family members are an African origined archaic race.

Cro-Magnonman disappeared rapidly. And this has a single
reason: Paleoanthropological discoveries have demonstrated that Cro-Magnon
and Neanderthal races melted in each other and laid the basis for
current races. Today it?s acknowledged that members of Cro-Magnon race
still live in various regions of Africa and in Salute, and Dordonion
regions of France. People carrying the same characteristics can also be
found in Poland and in Hungary.

It is an indisputable fact that Cro-Magnon men which are intended
to be presented different from today?s man by the evolutionists were no
different than us.

Neanderthal Race

One of the most striking part of the man?s evolution story is Neanderthals.
Neanderthals who were real human beings were introduced for a very
long time as "a primitive human race" by the evolutionists and were presented
as an intermediate transitional form from ape to man.

The story of the Neanderthal man begins in Neander valley in
Germany. A teacher in a local school runs across a skull fragment, a thighbone
and other small skeleton pieces in 1856. These pieces are studied by an
anatomy professor named Schaafhausen in Bonn University and are allocated
after many surveys and comparisons as a typical man without any anatomical
abnormality. According to Schaafhausen who made the first study, the bones
belonged to an old human race, possibly to a barbarian tribe who
resided there before the German race moved to the region.

Afterwards the fossils were sent to the University of Berlin and re-examined
here by Professor Rudolf Virchow. Virchow who were to be called as the
father of pathology later on, made a diagnosis which still maintains its
validity today: These bones belonged to a Homo sapiens who had suffered
from severe arthritis in his childhood. And the actual reason of his death
seemed to be several strokes he got on his skull.

Nevertheless, the anatomy professor William King from Queen University
in Ireland who studied the fossils after Virchow made a totally new interpretation
which started the Neanderthal man legend. As a long-dated passionate
advocator of the theory of evolution, King drew some conclusions from the
structures of bones in accordance with evolutionist prudence. He pronounced
that this fossil man was more "primitive" than the modern man and therefore
could not be classified alongside with him. He also assigned a "scientific"
name to it: "Homo neanderthalensis". According to King he was a
member of Homo (human) species; but at the same time too primitive to be
a human.

Two years later, similar skeletons were found in Belgium. These skeletons
which did not draw much attention at the beginning, afterwards attracted
the attention of some who were looking for the supposedly ape ancestors
of man under the deep influence of Darwin's book, Origin of Species.

In 1908, new Neanderthal skeletons were found in Le Moustier
village in the region of La Chapelle-Aux-Saints, France. These were
studied by Professor Boule from the Paleoanthropology Institute in
Paris who had dedicated himself to support the evolutionist theory. Professor
Boule was assigned to create a primitive Neanderthal man image in
people?s minds. Professor received his task with enthusiasm and began his
studies. He told his discoveries as follows:

Neanderthals seem to be closer to apes than any other group of
man and their intelligence is not wholly developed. The composition, position
and the order of the cerebellum and spinal cord are the same as the apes.
Besides, the feet have the same grasping attribute as in chimpanzees and
gorillas. The anotomical structure of Neanderthals indicate that
they walk in an awkward and clumsy way.

At the same time, Professor Boule had taken an initial step by making
the first Neanderthal reconstruction. According to this reconstruction
which he made relying upon his preconceptions, Neanderthal man is
a half man and half ape being. He can?t walk upright and stoops as apes.
This baseless construction made by Boule in accordance with his subjective
interpretation of the Neanderthal fossils he had, caused to originate
a biased opinion about Neanderthals which still abides today.

Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, Kebara 2 ("Moshe")
found in Israel is the most integral Neanderthal fossil ever found.
The skeleton of this individual who is 1.70 metres tall, cannot be discriminated
from modern man. The tool remains found together with the fossil induces
the thought that the community to which this individual belonged shared
the same culture with the Homo sapiens communities that lived in
the same region at those times.

Despite all efforts of the evolutionists, this subjective approach to Neanderthals
began to change starting from 1950s. Advanced technical means confirmed
that Neanderthals were by no means primitive men in contrast to
the prevailing view.

In the light of these data, there remain the following questions to
be replied; Was the Neanderthal man, who was alleged to live only
30,000 years ago, really primitive as the evolutionists claimed? Were Neanderthals
primitive creatures who had no civilization and even unable to walk upright?

These questions were replied by two researchers who examined La Chapelle-Aux-Saints
fossils in 1957. The anatomists named Straus and Cave found out why the
fossil man found in 1908 and depicted in a reconstruction by Boule stooped.
As Professor Rudolf Virchow from Berlin University had pointed out once,
this fossil also had suffered from chronic arthritis like the Neanderthal
man who was firstly found. This bone disease was deforming the shape
of the spinecord and led to stooping due to the dissolving of the bones.
His mandible bone was also deformed. In short, the reason why Neanderthal
fossil had a bent posture was the severe arthritis disease he suffered
from and not his relevance to a primitive species.

On the other hand, all the other finds yielded human characteristics.
His big toe was not bent as Boule claimed. His thighbone was just same
as that of man?s. The report prepared by Straus and Cave was ending with
the following words: "If they had come back to life today, most probably
they would not be discriminated from the other people in New York subway
provided that they had bath and were shaved and wore modern suits."

Thus it had become imperative to find a new scientific name for the
Neanderthalman who was formerly considered as a distinct
species from the man of our day and earmarked as Homo neanderthalensis.
Henceforth, the Neanderthal man was illustrated as a sub-species
of man and named as Homo sapiens neanderthalensis.

Today there is not much for the evolutionists to say about Neanderthal
man. It has been apparently revealed that the reason why the fossil,
which was illustrated in a construction by Boule stooped was the arthritis
desease. Fully modern skulls and skeletons of the other Neanderthal
fossils are not open to any kind of speculation. An estimated authority
on this subject, Erik Trinkaus from New Mexico University, remarks as follows:

Detailed comparisons of Neanderthal skeletal remains with those
of modern humans have shown that there is nothing in Neanderthal anatomy
that conclusively indicates locomotor, manipulative, intellectual, or linguistic
abilities inferior to those of modern humans.

What?s more, the evidence indicates that the Neanderthals were people
of incredible power and strength -far superior to all but the most avid
body builders of today. Trinkaus continues as follows:

One of the most characteristic features of the Neanderthals
is the exaggerated massiveness of their trunk and limb bones. All of the
preserved bones suggest a strength seldom attained by modern humans. Furthermore,
not only is this robustness present among the adult males, as one might
expect, but it is also evident in the adult females, adolescents, and even
children.

Valerius Geist from Calgary University states the following in relation
to the subject:

Neanderthal was far more powerful than modern humans were. Whereas
archaeologists can experimentally duplicate the wear pattern on tools such
as were used by people from the Upper Palaeolithic (the people that followed
Neanderthal...), the wear patterns on Neanderthal?s tools
cannot be duplicated. We do not have the strength to do it. Neanderthal?s
skeleton reflects a supremely powerful musculature.

The evolutionists deliberately ignore the difference between the 1400 cc.
skull volume of modern man and 1250-1750 cc. skull volume of Neanderthals.
They well know that the announcement of this fact would pose a serious
problem in terms of their thesis. Since the evolutionists interpreted the
skull volumes they found as sole evidences of evolution, accepting the
fact that Neanderthal man had a large skull volume than the modern
man would imply a sheer regression in the evolutional process because this
would simply mean that Neanderthals were more intelligent than the
modern man.

Nevertheless the skull of Neanderthal which is slightly bigger
than that of the modern man, does not indicate that they are more "intelligent"
or ahead in the evolution process since such an evolution process never
existed. Neanderthals are just a particular mankind race differing
from the current moderate mankind with some minor anatomical differences.
It is in fact a known fact that various mankinds have different cranial
capacities. It is evident that the capacity of the cranium has nothing
to do with intelligence or being advanced.

The fate of Neanderthals constitute another serious problem for
the evolutionists. The question why these men disappeared completely from
the fossil record 30,000 years ago extended various disputes and speculations
among the evolutionists.

There are three theories on this issue. The first is the theory of intermediate
transition form advanced by the American anthropologist Ales Hridlicka.
According to this imaginary theory, the evolution of mankind beginning
with Homo erectus continued with Neanderthal man, and then
originated the archaic form of Homo sapiens and lastly the modern
Homo sapiens had evolved. The lineage of Neanderthal man,
which was inferior to Homo sapiens, had died out during the period
of natural selection.

The second theory suggested that the Neanderthals which are accepted
to be a European race were exterminated by Homo sapiens communities
coming from Africa Thus the Neanderthals which were a blind alley
for the evolution were totally wiped out from the face of history. This
theory suggests that there is no trace of Neanderthals in modern
man?s genes.

The last theory seems to be the most credible one. According to this,
the people who emigrated from Africa 100-150 years ago assimilated the
Neanderthal race and some other Homo erectus communities
living in Europe. Therefore Homo erectus,Homo sapiens neanderthalensis
and Homo sapiens sapiens groups which had been thought to live
in the same era mixed with each other and formed a single homogeneous group.

The most important point here is that the real men designated as Homo
sapiens sapiens, Homo sapiens archaic, Homo sapiens neanderthalensis
and Homo erectus by the evolutionists were different races who lived
in the same era and mixed with each other in time. The allegation that
they evolved from each other is totally groundless. Neanderthals
are not a different human species, but a different human race.

The fossils certainly support this conclusion. According to the dates
given by the evolutionists, Neanderthals had appeared 200 thousand
years ago and disappeared ambiguously 30 thousand years ago. These fossils
which have no anatomical difference from modern man were also found in
Qafzeh cave in Israel. This proved both facts that people lived in Near
East since ancient times and Neanderthals lived with other human
races in close regions side by side for nearly 60,000 years. As understood
from the fossil records, men earmarked as Homo erectus by the evolutionists
also lived together with these races at that time. It is undoubtedly very
reasonable for various mankind races to have close relations with each
other and compose a homogeneous group by mixing in time.

The Real Story of Homo Sapiens Archaic

Homo sapiens archaic is one of the most recent classifications devised
by the evolutionists. They say that this is an archaic (old) form of Homo
sapiens sapiens which is the modern man. Some fossils that can not
be considered as Homo erectus,Neanderthal or Homo sapiens
sapiens according to some classifications based on criteria like cranial
capacity and skull morphology was included in this group. This is why fossils
designated as Homo sapiens archaic have very diverse brain volumes
and characteristics and are of different ages.

The first point that should be known about Homo sapiens archaic,
is that there isn?t much difference between them and Homo sapiens sapiens.
It is generally accepted that the difference between these two is based
on their cranial capacities. The most typical feature of Homo sapiens
archaic is the projecting eyebrow curvature which Homo sapiens sapiens
do not have at all or have very little. Furthermore the skeleton structure
below the skull is accepted to be same as the modern man. As far as the
evolutionists state, the cranial capacity of Homo sapiens archaic
is around 1100-1400cc and these man had lived between B.C. 700 thousand
and 5000 A.D.

Some evolutionists who reckon Neanderthals to be a blind alley
of evolution accept that not the Neanderthals, but Homo erectus
and, their descendants, Homo sapiens archaic are the ancestors of
mankind. In this respect they argue that Homo sapiens archaic is
an intermediary form between Homo erectus and Homo sapiens sapiens.

The fossil which represents Homo sapiens archaic best, is the Rhodesian
man fossil which is one of the firstly attributed fossils to this species.

Rhodesian man fossil was found in 1921 in Zambia, which was then
called North Rhodesia. According to the evolutionist palaeontologists who
studied the fossil, the projecting eyebrow as the most remarkable feature
of the skull rendered it a primitive species. However the 1280 cc. cranium
capacity necessitated it to be included in the Homo sapiens category. His
age which which was determined to be around 20-40 thousand years in 1921
supported this finding.

However, the age of the Rhodesian man fossil was changed by the
evolutionists about 30 years after the fossil was found. The first estimation
of 40 thousand years was found far too young for the Rhodesian man
who had a "primitive" structure. Thus, the evolutionists applied the formula,
"change the test where you do not like the result". The age of Rhodesian
man fossil was increased from 40 thousand to 200-400 thousand years
as a result of radiometric tests. This age complied with the evolutionist
schemes much better.

However there are many reasons to think that these dating estimations
are faulty and that the Rhodesian man has actually lived much more
recently.
.
The first reason comes out when taken a brief look at the date the
fossil was found. In the British Nature Magazine which first introduced
the Rhodesian man fossil to the world of science, a report was published
in 1921 which said; "The skull is in a remarkably fresh state of preservation,
the bone having merely lost its animal matter and not having been in the
least mineralised."

However according to the rules of geology, any organic remain which
stays for about 200-400 thousand years under the ground would definitely
be mineralised. Therefore, the fact that Rhodesian fossil was not exposed
to mineralisation as stated in the original report indicated that it couldn?t
be as old as the evolutionists said. The reason why it was said to be that
old was only that its appearance was speculatively thought to be "primitive".
There is actually no logical reason to stop thinking that Rhodesian
man fossil belongs to a near past.

Another interesting point is that the fossil was actually unearthed
from a tunnel at the far end of a zinc-lead mine nearly 2 metres under
the ground. Moreover, fossils of two or three people were found at the
same sight alongside with the Rhodesian man. In comparison to the
Rhodesian man, these skeletons possesed much more modern characteristics.
This showed that the Rhodesian man who was presented as an older
and more primitive species than Homo sapiens sapiens, actually lived
at the same age with Homo sapiens sapiens and therefore was only
a different race.

This situtation also hinted that these people were possibly fossilised
by being buried under the ground as a result of an accident that occurred
while they worked in the mine. The idea that these archaic people had attained
such a high civilisation as to dig a mine and work there conflicts with
all the assumptions of the evolutionist theory. The fact that the supposedly
"primitive species" called as Homo sapiens archaic was modern enough
to do mine labour was an evidence refuting all the assertions on both the
biological and the cultural evolution.

The Real Story of Homo Erectus

Homo erectus series is possibly the weakest link in the story of
evolution of mankind. Because the species called Homo habilis preceding
Homo erectus in the evolutionist scheme was definitely an ape species
walking on all fours. Homo erectus means "the man walking upright
(erect)" and its skeleton has no difference from that of the modern man.
The only reason why the evolutionists interpreted this fossil to be a different
species more primitive than the modern man, was its cranial capacity which
was a little bit smaller than avarege contemporary man, and its certain
cranial characteristics. However these two traits do not make Homo erectus
a distinct species, but a particular race like Neanderthals.

Now let?s examine this truth we briefly summarised above together:

The story of Homo Erectus reaches up to the German biologist
Ernest Haeckel who is one of the famous advocates of the theory of evolution
and among the prominent racists of the 19th. century. Becoming a zealous
advocate of the theory of evolution right after reading Darwin's Origin
of Species, Haeckel came up with a new theory after a short while making
an interesting contribution to the evolutionist theory. According to this
theory, which was allocated as "embryological evolution" and summarised
as "individualisation is the repetition of generation", during its development,
an embryo passes through the stages which reflect the physical characteristics
of its ancestors. According to this, for instance, during the development
of a human embryo, it is possible to observe the characteristics of apes,
namely his oldest ancestors.

Soon it became clear that this theory which was the figment of a broad
imagination was totally false. Moreover, the forgery Haeckel used to support
his theory were disclosed in a short time. This "great" scientist had not
restrained himself from extracting the one third of ape or human embryos
from his drawings in order to prove his assertion.

Soon it became clear that this theory which was the figment of a broad
imagination was totally false. Moreover, the forgery Haeckel used to support
his theory were disclosed in a short time. This "great" scientist had not
restrained himself from extracting the one third of ape or human embryos
from his drawings in order to prove his assertion.

Haeckel?s explanation regarding his forgery is
also quite interesting. While confessing the forgeries he had made, he
defended himself by stating that his other collegues had also
followed the same way. Haeckel says:

To cut short this unsavoury dispute, I begin
at my numerous drawings of embryos (perhaps six or eight percent) are in
a sense falsified - all those, namely, for which the present material of
observation is so incomplete of insufficient as to compel us, when we come
to prepare a continuous chain of the evolutionary stages, to fill up the
gaps by hypotheses, and to reconstruct the missing links by comparative
syntheses? After this compromising confession of 'forgery' I should be
obliged to consider myself condemned and annihilated if I had not the consolation
of seeing side by side with me in the prisoner's dock hundreds of fellow
- culprits, among them many of the most trusted observers and most esteemed
biologists. The great majority of all the diagrams in the best biological
textbooks, treatises and journals would incur in the same degree the change
of 'forgery', for all of them are inexact, and are more or less doctored,
schematised and constructed.

Here is Haeckel, the "forefather" ofHomo
erectus.

Java Man

After his studies on evolution models and fossils, Haeckel convinced himself
that once upon a time a sort of ape-man should have lived in South Asia
and Africa. Depending upon the scientists who once made researches in the
area, he already knew that there were some fossils found in the region.
Haeckel named the species he imagined in his mind as "Pithecanthropus
alalus" (the man who cannot talk). Afterwards he faithfully began to
inculcate this idea to the people around him and to the students in Jena
University where he gave lectures. Furthermore, he began to draw pictures
depicting how this imaginary creature lived with his wife and children
in his natural environment.

Haeckel's thesis made a great influence on one of his Dutch students,
Eugene Dubois. Dubois strongly believed that Pithecantropus alalus had
once existed and began his studies to follow the track of this being. Meanwhile
Haeckel heard that some interesting fossils were found in Sumatra Island,
Indonesia. Being inspired by this, he decided that the remains of Pithecanthropus
alalus should be in Sumatra or Java Islands in Indonesia. Taking up
this inspiration immediately, Dubois decided to go to the region to launch
an investigation. First, he goes to the Dutch government to ask for financial
support for his investigations. When his application was refused, he found
a more interesting way and he enrolled to the Dutch Royal Army as a sergeant
to serve in Indonesia. After he arrived to the region, he learned about
the discovery of a skull fossil near Java Island. After seizing this
skull, Dubois also found other skulls around the same region. But these
skulls were too human-like for an ape-man.

Dubois continued his investigations exuberantly. In October 1891, he
came across a big molar tooth in a cave near Solo River. Next month he
found another. One month later, he found the upper part of the skull of
"Java man", which later would be classified as Homo erectus. One
year later, 12 metres away from where this skull fragment was found, he
unearthed a fossilised human pelvis bone. Dubois reached to the conclusion
that all his findings, namely the skull fragment, two molar teeth, and
the pelvis bone belonged to the same person. And he announced his "great"
discovery to the world of science: All these pieces were the remains of
the "lost link" between man and ape which the evolutionists were searching
for decades. This fossil which gave birth to the imaginary species of "Pithecanthropus
erectus" (the man who can stand upright) was earmarked as "Java man"
because it was found in the Java Island.

The findings of Dubois came to the help of the theory of evolution right
at a time when it was exposed to severe criticisms on account it lacked
evidence. The fossils were exhibited in Berlin under Dubois' inspection
and were introduced as a great evidence for evolution to the whole world.
Many pictures and illustrations depicting the fossil man Pithecanthropus
as primitive and ape-like were drawn and published in all related publications.

This is the story of Java man, which is the most famous member of Homo
erectus species. When we unravel this story recited by the evolutionists
as the persistent venture of a researcher (Dubois) who was burning with
the love of science, we come across with interesting points. The reason
is that Dubois has acted so subjective as to the degree of forgery.

What is more important is that Dubois had concealed the other fossils
he found in the same region. In the layer where Dubois found Pithecanthropus,
he had also found two more skulls belonging to the same era. The cranial
capacities of these two fossils were even bigger than the cranial capacity
of the modern man. However Dubois never displayed these two skulls, and
only exposed the Pithecanthropus fossil, which he thought to be
primitive. The American palaeontologist Ruth Moore describes the destiny
of these two "inconvenient" skulls called Wajdak skulls as follows:

Dubois packed up the Wajdak skulls neatly, because he did not want
anything to overshadow his discovery after he brought out Pithecanthropus.
Both of the Wajdak skulls had large cranial capacities. Dubois found their
capacity to be 1500 cc. which is over the moderate cranial capacity of
modern European people.

As the news about Wajdak skulls became public, serious doubts raised about
Java man. As the criticisms directed to Dubois increased, he started to
be more discreet about the fossils he found. He did not show his findings
to anyone, and had even locked some fossils in the basement below his dining
room. However 40 years after the discovery of Pithecanthropus, he
was compelled to confess that he had found modern man skulls in the same
region. The exposure of the fact that a species which was thought to be
primitive had lived in the same era with modern man only indicated that
the fossil did not belong to a primitive species, but to a different race.

Nonetheless, the evolutionists did not want to renounce the Java man.
The fossil which was named Pithecanthropus by Dubois, was later
re-named as Homo erectus and placed within today?s imaginary series
of man?s evolution.

Well, who exactly was Homo erectus? Was it the much sought "lost
link" between the ape and the man, or was it merely a particular mankind?

Most recent information regarding Homo erectus were found in
1960 by Louis Leakey in Olduvai Valley in Tanzania. This firstly found
skull was named OH9. In the following years new fossils were unearthed.
In 1970, there were many Homo erectus fossils available mostly found
by Louis Leakey's son, Richard Leakey in the region called Koobi Fora.
Furthermore, many Homo erectus fossils were found in various regions
of China along with miscellaneous tool remains. Interestingly enough, in
the excavations in China, complex tool remains and remains related with
fire use were unearthed. These remains were attributed to Homo erectus
with the assumption that Homo sapiens should not have lived there
for 500 thousand - 1 million years more.

Pekin Man and Other Homo Erectus Fossils

The Chinese researchers came across some human fossils in Choukoutien 35
kms far away from the capital of China, Pekin in 1921. These fossils were
composed of 30 skull fragments, 11 jaw bones and 147 teeth. However there
were very few body bones belonging to these fossils, but there was only
a fragmented arm bone available.

The idea to call these fossils Sinanthropus pekinensis was firstly
suggested in 1929 by Dr. Davidson Black who was an anatomy professor in
United Medical School in Pekining. In the very same year, some new remains
were found in the excavations made in the Choukoutien region. These new
skeletons which were soon to be named as Sinanthropus by Davidson
Black, were unearthed from a cave with a ceiling which seemed to have collapsed.
All the skulls were damaged and their mandible bones were lacking. Their
cranial capacities varied between 900 - 1200 cc.

When Dr. Davidson Black died in 1934, the German paleoanthropologist
Franz Weidenreich overtook his mission. From then on Weidenreich carried
out the studies of introducing these skulls to the world of science. Weidenreich
made plaster casts for each skull. He also made the reconstructions of
these fragmented skulls.

Unfortunately, during the disorder caused by World War II between 1941-1945,
all fossils were lost except two molar teeth. These lost bones were never
found again. All that have reached to our day are only a few undestroyed
teeth and the above mentioned plaster casts made by Weidenreich.

In 1952, two researchers named Boule and Valois made a detailed research
on one of these plaster casts. According to their findings, there was very
minor difference between Pithecanthropus, who was allocated as Java
man, and the Sinanthropus fossil in their hands. It was so that
the differences between the skulls of different Neanderthal individuals
were more than the differences between Sinanthropus and Pithecanthropus.
These two groups of skulls discovered in different geographies were very
much alike. After these results, these two groups were brought together
under a single species and Java man fossil was called Pithecanthropus
erectus while Peking man fossil was called Pithecanthropus pekinensis.
After a while, the evolutionists defined them as a single species and gave
them a new name: Homo erectus, that is, "the man who stands upright".

Meanwhile the most important Homo erectus fossil was found in
1965 in Vertesszlöllös, Hungary. These remains which were suggested
to be the skeleton of a man of about 30 years old were dated as 400-500
thousand years. This Homo erectus fossil which was extraordinarily
alike Homo sapiens was classified as a new species named as Homo
paleohungaricus (Erectus seu sapiens). Another group of fossils found
in the same region after a while were modern enough to be included into
both Homo erectus and Homo sapiens classes. The other remains
found in Sidi "Abd-Ar-Rahman" and "Rabat" in North Africa also had the
same obscurities. Most of these fossils sharing the same characteristics
with both Homo erectus and Homo sapiens were afterwards included
into archaic Homo sapiens class. However this was an evidence showing
that there was no difference between Homo erectus and Homo sapiens.

In June 1984, Richard Leakey and his team found a fossil in Turkana,
Kenya, which was considered as a great accomplishment in regards to palaeontology.
This was the fossilised skeleton of a 12-year-old boy. With the lone exception
of some characteristics of his skull, this skeleton belonged to a fully
modern human. He had an even less evident eyebrow ridge than some modern
human races and his upper forehead was narrower than usual. Briefly, he
was not much different from us.

When he first found this fossil, even Richard Leakey stated that this
boy could well merge in a crowd of people if he lived today. The
fact that this skeleton was found in a layer assumed to be 1.6 million
years old hindered this fact to be admitted. Because the fact that a Homo
sapiens had lived at such an early date was entirely in contrast with
the evolution schemes. Thus the child was included in the Homo erectus
class. Leakey described the discrepancies this fossil created with
the evolutionary theories in his article, "Modern and Tall" as follows:

?At five feet four inches tall, the boy from Turkana was suprisingly
large compared with modern boys his age; he could well have grown to six
feet. Suitably clothed and with a cap to obscure his low forehead and beetle
brow, he would probably go unnoticed in a crowd today. This find combines
with previous discoveries of Homo erectus to contradict a longheld
idea that humans have grown larger over the milennia.

This human fossil called Turkana Child was 1.60 m high and was the oldest
human fossil ever found. According to Walker, he was expected to be 1.83
m. tall when he reached adolescence. Even the evolutionist paleoantropologists
who examined the fossil, Richard Leakey and A.Walker expressed their surprise
saying that it bears a dramatic similarity to ancient man and its skeleton
very much resembles that of a modern child.

The facts yielded by these results were quite important: Evidently there
was no important difference between Homo sapiens sapiens defined as a modern
man and the so-called species of Homo erectus. The difference between
these two Homo species was at most same as the difference between
various races currently living on earth -and that could remain isolated.
Homo sapiens sapiens and Homo erectus were merely different
races which were discriminated from each other in order to fill in the
evolution scheme.

This was true also for Homo sapiens archaic or Neanderthals.
As a matter of fact, it could well be thought that Turkana Child fossil
was a member of the Neanderthal race. Walker tells that when they
placed the jaw bone within the skull, Leakey and he laughed a lot since
it was so similar to Neanderthal.

Homo Erectus; A Modern Man

With reference to above information, some basic facts about the most
important member of imaginary evolution scheme, Homo erectus, can
be highlighted.

It should be firstly emphasised that the postcranium of Homo erectus
is exactly the same as the modern man. They are all tall, and have an upright
posture. Moreover, probably Homo erectus is the first living thing
all over the world that have an upright posture. (Homo habilis which are
placed right before Homo erectus in the evolution scheme are quadropedal
apes who cannot walk upright - as mentioned in the previous pages.)

In some sources it is even stated that the morphological structure of
Homo erectus enabled them to use the energy spent while walking in a more
productive way and thus they could even walk more efficiently than the
modern man. It is evident that such excellent stride is not attained through
an evolutional process, but through a "special design", which is creation.

The only difference between Homo erectus and today's modern man is
the skull. This difference is especially seen in the projecting part of
the eyebrows. The eyebrow curvature in Homo erectus is a little
bit more projecting in comparison to ours. Yet this does not make a big
difference neither in the genetic structure nor the physical appearance.
The mentioned skull characteristics of these people called Homo erectus
are racial and also normal. Richard Leakey who is among the leading defenders
of the theory of evolution cannot restrain himself from making the following
statement on Homo erectus in his book "The Making of Human Kind"
although it is in contradiction with the evolutionist thought:

One would also see differences in the shape of the skull, in the degree
of protrusion of the face, the robustness of the brows and so on. These
differences are probably no more pronounced than we see today between the
separate geographical races of modern humans. Such biological variation
arises when populations are geographically separated from each other for
significant lengths of time.

An article published in Time magazine, in November
1996 had a big impact. In this article, the 27 thousand year old Homo
erectus fossils which were firstly announced in the Science
magazine were taken up. These articles initiated an important argument
among the evolutionists. It was to the astonishment of the evolutionists
how it could be possible for "a primitive species" which was supposed to
arise 2 million years ago to come as close as 27 thousand years before
today. Thus the scientific realities refuted
the idea of man's evolution once more. On the left is seen a representative
reconstruction of Homo erectus man. Above is the skull and the place
it was found..

Former president of Istanbul University Social Anthropology Department,
Professor Doctor Nephan Saran has stated the following about the absurdity
of the robustness of the eyebrows which is determined as the most important
criteria defining Homo erectus:

.....We have already referred to the robustness on the eye cavity which
is mentioned before and used in the "race" classification. This robustness
is found recpectively in Pithecanthropus, Sinanthropus,
Neanderthal and Rhodesia man. In male gorilla, it displays an
obvious and strong development. In the extant human groups, it is seen
in the Australians. It can be thought that this trait is a sign of primitiveness.

Yet here again the true incidents do not support this idea. This robustness
is not seen in the young gorilla and adolescent orangutan. But it exists
in the adolescent gorilla. As for the human fossils, it exists in some,
and absent in some others. In Asian Mongoloids, it has already completely
disappeared. It is present in some of the Caucasians and Negroes. All these
reveal that the anthropologists are faced with a very confusing situation.

Despite his evolutionist attitude, Richard Leakey expresses the truth
on the issue as follows:

Most of the anatomysts accepted the big eyebrow projections which resembled
to old apes as "primitive" characteristics. Considering this, the eyebrow
projection of Neanderthal and Peking men were assumed
to indicate the "primitive" characteristic of these men. However today
it is perceived that the big eyebrow projection does not witness "primitiveness",
but this is a specification. Having met these kinds of characteristics
in some societies does not show indicate an ancient evolutional stage,
but a branch which specialized in a different respect than the other Homo
sapiens types.

Briefly, today it has been understood that the robustness of the eyebrow,
skull structure and jaw structure which are assumed to be primitive characteristics,
can not prove one race to be superior over another or one race to be more
"primitive" than the other in terms of evolution. As stated in the last
sentence of the above quotation, these characteristics are various disparities
of different races. Just like the yellow race has slanting eyes or Eskimos
have robust bodies, these kind of structural traits are completely racial.

Unsurprisingly, each new found fossil disclaims the thesis that man
underwent an evolution in time and further proves that the people designated
as Homo erectus or Neanderthal are not evolutionary steps,
but only individuals of various human races.

This situation is made more clear when these fossils are put in a chronological
order. In contrast with the evolutionist claims, these people, interpreted
as different species by the evolutionists have not lived in subsequent
historical eras, but in the same time span and sometimes altogether. Thus
far, 222 Homo erectus fossils have been unearthed in Australia,
Europe, Africa, and Asia. Depending upon these fossils which are totally
accepted by the evolutionists and registered in various natural history
museums under certain names, Marvin L. Lubenow declared that 106 out of
these 222 fossils were more recent than 300 thousand years. And 62 out
of these 106 fossils were more recent than 13 thousand years. Thus it is
understood that men called Homo erectus are only a different race
of Homo sapiens.

Looking at what we have inquired from the beginning of this chapter,
there seems to be only one conclusion to be drawn. The evolutionary affirming
that man came into existence through evolving from primates does not depend
on any concrete evidence and in contrary is invalidated by all available
proofs. The scheme on the evolution of man which is sought to be kept alive,
is actually based on extremely subjective interpretations, distortions
and even forgeries of the evolutionists.

In short, evolution of man is only a deception just like all the other
thesis of the theory of evolution?